Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Selby Toll Bridge (Purchase)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Transport if he will now make a statement with regard to the negotiations for the purchase of Selby Toll Bridge.

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Barnes): Negotiations with the owners are still proceeding. Whilst they are in progress it would not be in the public interest for me to make any statement.

Colonel Ropner: In view of the very grave inconvenience which this bridge causes to the inhabitants of Selby and to the whole of the district, can the right hon. Gentleman give me an assurance that negotiations are being pressed on at the fullest possible speed, and can he give any sort of indication when they will be concluded?

Mr. Barnes: I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman an assurance that the negotiations are being pressed on with speed, because his persistence has compelled me to devote some attention to it, but it is a very involved affair, and I really cannot give any date. I will keep the matter under review.

Cookham Toll Bridge (Transfer)

Mr. John E. Haire: asked the Minister of Transport what are the reasons for the continued delay in. the transfer of the Cookham Toll Bridge to the local authorities concerned.

Mr. Barnes: This bridge will have to be strengthened to carry the increased traffic which will use it when it is freed from tolls. The county surveyor's proposals for strengthening it were received on 9th June and the county councils have now been informed that a Road Fund grant will be made towards the cost of acquiring and strengthening the bridge.

Mr. Haire: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these negotiations with his Department have gone on for some months, and that it was only when I put a Question down to him that final action was taken?

Mr. Barnes: No, I do not agree. I am always glad to encourage hon. Members to make representations, but in this case, in view of the date, it seems to me to be a fairly reasonable situation.

By-Pass, Redhill

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Transport whether it is proposed to repair and reopen the Canadian By-pass, Red-hill, in view of the fact that this road


links the two main roads out of Redhill, thus relieving traffic congestion in Redhill and in view of the fact that, during part of last winter, it was the only road to South Nuffield which was not snow- and ice-bound.

Mr. Barnes: The road is not suitable for permanent use as part of a by-pass to Redhill. The future by-pass is planned to the north of the town.

Mr. Touche: Why is the road not suitable? Could it not be opened until the new by-pass is built?

Mr. Barnes: I have looked into this matter, and there seems to be a good deal of technical support for this decision in the county as well as in my Ministry.

Masked Approaches (Guard Rails)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that casualties outside Osterley Station, on the Great West Road, where the approach of motor traffic is masked by a hump, have been reduced by erecting rails along the middle of the road to prevent pedestrians from crossing at that point; and whether he will have a complete survey made of the possibility of reducing by this means casualties at other points where the approach of motor traffic is masked by a hump or a corner.

Mr. Barnes: Highway authorities generally fully appreciate the contribution to road safety which the use of guard rails can make, and I do not think that a survey on the lines suggested is required.

Mr. Keeling: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with his statement that he is always willing to receive suggestions?

Mr. Barnes: I am. In this case, as the hon. Member knows, this matter is, not continuously, but off and on, under the supervision and examination of the Road Safety Committee.

Improvement Works, Whitworth

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that, owing to the reduction of road maintenance grants, two important road improvements at Healey and Leavengreave, near

Whitworth, have been held up; and whether, in view of the number of accidents which have occurred at these places, he will arrange for the necessary improvements to be facilitated without further delay.

Mr. Barnes: This is a matter primarily for the responsible highway authority, and they have not applied to me for any assistance towards the carrying out of the schemes to which the hon. Member refers.

Bus Shelters (Factory Gates)

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Minister of Transport what is the policy of his Department as regards the provision of omnibus shelters at factory gates.

Mr. Barnes: There are no powers under the general law to require omnibus shelters to be provided, but my Department encourages their provision where they are needed. If the hon. Member has any particular case in mind, I shall be happy to look into it.

Mr. Sutcliffe: Will the right hon. Gentleman urge the Traffic Commissioners to adopt a more progressive attitude in this matter? At present I believe a census is taken, and only the places where there is the longest waiting are dealt with. Surely, there should be a shelter outside every factory, especially in the North-West where there is a lot of rain?

Temporary Thames Bridges (Removal)

Mr. Haire: asked the Minister of Transport when it is proposed to remove the temporary bridges over the Thames in the London area.

Mr. Barnes: I understand that the London County Council, who are responsible for these bridges, are at present considering the tenders which they have received for the work.

Mr. Haire: Would my right hon. Friend do his utmost to speed the removal of these bridges, because not only are they unsightly and dangerous to children who play on them, but also they would yield much valuable material which could be used elsewhere?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I will certainly do that.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he told me two years ago that the matter was then under consideration.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. I have repeatedly drawn the attention of the London County Council to this matter. They now have the tenders, and I am hopeful that before long some action will be taken.

Mr. Berry: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the recent breakdown due to the non-use of footbridge, one of these bridges was a godsend to pedestrians?

Mr. Barnes: That is nice to know.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Wagons

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what special steps are being taken to speed up the repair of crippled wagons loaded en route and at wagon works.

Mr. Barnes: Capacity for repairs of wagons has been reinforced by the use of Royal Ordnance Factories and other premises not normally engaged on this work,' and this process is continuing wherever suitable works can be made available. The output of repairs is now some 2,000 to 3,000 a week in excess of corresponding output last year, in spite of shortage of materials, especially steel and timber. Priority of supply has been granted, and as it becomes effective in increased deliveries, output of repairs should improve still more.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport how many and what types of new railway wagons have been put into service so far this year; and what is the target for 1947.

Mr. Barnes: Fourteen thousand, six hundred and forty goods and mineral wagons, and 1,540 of other types so far. The target figure for all types is 47,000.

Mr. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Transport what special action is being taken to improve the turn-round of railway wagons at terminal depots, in view of the urgent need for rolling stock.

Mr. Barnes: Reduction of turn-round depends on two factors, reduced time in

transit, and quicker loading and unloading at terminal points. The railway companies are paying close attention to both, but, in the case of delays at terminals, require the active co-operation of employers and workpeople. Instructions have been issued to all Government Departments, and the active assistance of the Regional Board, the National Production Advisory Council for Industry and the National Coal Board has been enlisted. The National Joint Advisory Council have also agreed to co-operate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me this opportunity of impressing on all concerned the importance of speeding up the loading and release of wagons and other means of transport, in particular on Saturdays in establishments conditioned to a five-day week. Saving one day in turn-round on each journey would give us 50,000 extra wagons.

Mr. Davies: Would my right hon. Friend consider whether it would be helping to increase demurrage charges so as to penalise the people who are delinquents in regard to railway wagons; and would he take account of the fact that wagons are sometimes scrapped merely because they are somewhat old, but which have, in fact, been rebuilt in the course of their running on the railways?

Mr. Barnes: The question of the increase in demurrage charges has been very carefully considered, but the opposition to it from traders generally is very strong, and, so far, it has not been felt necessary to impose that additional charge on industry. I hope that co-operation may give us better results. With regard to the point about more wagons, I could not, of course, give any assurance that an occasional mistake has not been made in the examination dealing with over one million wagons, but I think that, on the whole, care is taken to sort out the good ones.

Mr. Walkden: Is not the statement which my right hon. Friend has just delivered to the House very similar to the arrangements which were in operation last winter when we lost 232,000 tons of coal due to the shortage of wagons and locomotives; and can he tell us whether anything besides persuasion is going to be put into operation this winter? Will there not be some form of punishment for those who do not help the nation to see that wagons get a quicker turn-round?

Mr. Barnes: I would not say that the position this year is exactly the same as last——

Mr. Walkden: Very nearly.

Mr. Barnes: Not at all. The priority being accorded to locomotives and wagons should make a very substantial addition to the output. With regard to the point about the loss of coal, my hon. Friend should realise that coal is lost every winter in peacetime in this country through dislocation, from time to time, in transit facilities.

Mr. William Shepherd: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what percentage of wagon repairs has been lost by the reduction in working hours?

Mr. Barnes: I could not give a reply without notice, but, obviously, it is fairly substantial.

Mr. Sparks: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that there is adequate equipment for loading and unloading at railway terminal points?

Mr. Barnes: No, Sir. I am not satisfied.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Transport what instructions have been given by his Department about the scrapping of old wooden railway wagons.

Mr. Barnes: In August, 1946, I issued instructions that requisitioned wagons built prior to 1901 should be withdrawn from traffic when they required certain uneconomic repairs. The majority of these wagons are being broken up to provide material for repairs to other stock, and a number are being employed for internal user purposes.

Brigadier Rayner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a good many of the big wagon repairing firms consider that old but repairable wagons are being broken up under Government instructions much faster than new ones are being provided, and that this fact is likely to add to the gravity of the severe transport crisis which will soon be upon us?

Mr. Barnes: Sometimes there is truth in a general observation, but it is much more helpful if the facts can be submitted so that they can be examined.

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Supply what is the present monthly production rate of the 50,000 16-ton coal waggons ordered; and what monthly production rate was anticipated at the time of the order.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. John Wilmot): Production is running at a rate of about 1,500 a month. It was originally intended to complete the order in five years, which would have meant an overall average output of rather less than 1,000 a month.

Oral Answers to Questions — CROSS-CHANNEL SAILINGS (NORTHERN IRELAND)

Sir Ronald Ross: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is satisfied that the number of sailings of cross-channel vessels now permitted from Great Britain to Northern Ireland can meet all reasonable demands during the holiday season.

Mr. Barnes: While it cannot be guaranteed that every intending traveller to or from Northern Ireland will be able to get a passage on certain days during the peak holiday period, I am advised that, with the additional sailings recently authorised, the services will be reasonably adequate in all the present circumstances.

Sir R. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far ahead it is necessary to book passages to Northern Ireland from Liverpool or Heysham? How many days does it take?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot say.

Sir R. Ross: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can the Minister assure the House that travelling facilities are adequate for those who seek the carefree and democratic atmosphere of Southern Ireland?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot give an assurance that facilities are adequate for anybody to go anywhere just now.

Professor Savory: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider whether the "Princess Margaret," now lying up at Stranraer, which is only used on Fridays and Saturdays, could not run a daylight service as she used to do before the war?

Mr. Barnes: I would remind hon. Members that the problem is not so much one of providing adequate capacities, but of ensuring that the shipping services make their contribution to the saving of coal during the summer.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland is a very popular and desirable place for holidays, as distinct from permanent residence, and would he see that everything is done to meet the great demand for shipping holiday-makers to Northern Ireland?

Oral Answers to Questions — L.P.T.B. (ROAD AND RAIL SERVICES)

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport the number of tickets of each denomination issued on the L.P.T.B. for any typically average day, at the nearest convenient date, showing road and rail services, separately; and, if possible, indicate to what extent they have varied for a similar day in 1939.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, I am sending my hon. Friend the information he requires.

Mr. Sparks: asked the Minister of Transport the percentage increases in passenger journeys, average distance travelled and passenger miles run on the L.P.T.B. system in 1946 as compared with 1938–39.

Mr. Barnes: The figures are: 12.6, 17.8, and 32.7, per cent. respectively.

Mr. W. Shepherd: In view of this increase in the mileage, can the Minister explain why he is not able to reduce fares?

Mr. Barnes: I am afraid I cannot deal with that matter in question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Reconditioned Motor Cars (Ex-Servicemen)

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply if he will undertake that all surplus Government motor cars of a size suitable for reconditioning for disabled ex-Service men will be made available for them and will not be sold to Government Departments, Government corporations or to the general public.

Mr. Wilmot: Government owned cars cannot be made available to other users if they are required by Government Departments. Apart from this, all suitable cars are allocated to disabled ex-Service men, who are given priority over Government Corporations and the general public.

Mr. Shepherd: Why will the Minister not make available to disabled ex-Service men all cars which come from the Services and which are surplus to requirements? Why does he allow them to be sent on to Government Departments and Government corporations?

Mr. Wilmot: I have said they do not go to Government corporations. They are not surplus to Government requirements if they are required by Government Departments. Unless I am able to use secondhand cars to meet these urgent Government demands I should have to buy new cars, which I am sure would be wrong at this time.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport informed me a week ago in this House that there were only 966 disabled ex-Service men on the waiting list, could my right hon. Friend give some indication when he expects the requirements of those men will be met?

Mr. Wilmot: Very few cars suitable for this purpose are coming forward. Of the 2,800 cars that have come forward only 223 have been used by other Government Departments, so that nine out of every 10 have gone to ex-Service men. I will do my utmost to reduce that list as soon as I can.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more desirable to give these cars to ex-Service men than to high officials of the Government?

Mr. Wilmot: I have said twice today already—and it is perfectly true—that the Coal Board is not given priority over ex-Service men. Nor will it be.

Mr. Shepherd: Is it not a fact that the Minister answered me only a few weeks ago saying that over 2,000 of these cars, suitable in size for ex-Service men—that is of 14 h.p. and under—had, in fact, been sent to Government Departments or Government corporations?

Mr. Wilmot: No.

Mr. Shepherd: But yes.

Mr. Douglas Marshall: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering this matter will he take into account the number of cases of 100 per cent. ex-Service men, where the Minister of Transport has refused even to accept their names? Consequently, the figure of 966 is not the full figure.

Mr. Wilmot: I am aware that there is a considerable demand, but the fact is there are not the cars to meet it.

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

"Royal Ordnance Factory News" (Paper)

Mr. W. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Supply why it is intended to introduce a magazine covering the royal ordnance factories; and the weight of paper which will be involved per annum in this publication, together with the weight in the datum period.

Mr. Wilmot: The object of the "Royal Ordnance Factory News" is to assist co-operation between workers and management and so to improve production. The circulation is at present 10,000 copies, and publication is fortnightly. Each issue involves 3 cwt. of paper.

Mr. Shepherd: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer the last and most important part of my Question?

Mr. Wilmot: I am afraid I am not clear to what the hon. Gentleman refers when he speaks of "the datum period."

Mr. Shepherd: I thought it was a Government expression. What I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman is, how much of this paper was used for this purpose before the war?

Mr. Wilmot: Royal Ordnance Factories were developed during the war.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Wilmot: They were developed then.

Mr. Bramall: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind the great need for

some publication of this kind to explain the Ministry's policy to the workers in the Royal Ordnance Factories?

Mr. Wilmot: Yes, Sir. We have ample evidence that the house journal which has been started is doing very good work.

Aluminium Houses

Mr. George Wallace: asked the Minister of Supply (1) if it is intended, when all United Kingdom requirements have been met, to use the five factories, now operating, for the production of aluminium houses for export, especially to the U.S.A.;
(2) if, when Government quotas for aluminium houses are completed, it is intended to use the five factories, now operating, for the production of prefabricated school classrooms and hospital wards.

Mr. Wilmot: The future use of these five factories is at present being considered by the Departments concerned, and the suggestions made by my hon. Friend will be borne in mind.

Surplus Motor Cycle Tyres (Disposal)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Minister of Supply what the procedure is for the disposal of ex-W.D. motorcycle tyres; whether distribution of these tyres is confined to recognised tyre dealers; whether all dealers can get an allocation if they wish; and whether the selling price to the public is controlled.

Mr. Wilmot: These tyres are sold by competitive tender, and any recognised dealer may apply to be included in the list of firms invited to tender. The prices charged to the public are subject to the provisions of the Board of Trade Secondhand Goods Order.

Mr. Bramall: Could my right hon. Friend assure the House that only registered, recognised hire dealers are permitted to tender for those supplies?

Mr. Wilmot: People who are suitable to buy hem are included on the list.

Dairy Byre Fittings (Steel Tubing)

Lady Grant: asked the Minister of Supply whether he is aware of the shortage of steel tubing for dairy byre fittings; and if he will arrange a special immediate allocation of steel.

Mr. Wilmot: No, Sir; but I will have inquiries made if the hon. Member will be good enough to let me have details.

Lady Grant: Could the right hon. Gentleman state, in view of the vital importance of food production, whether the dairy farmers have any priority in obtaining steel tubing?

Mr. Wilmot: We would certainly do our utmost to see that such a demand was met.

Mr. Hobson: Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend is prepared to allocate steel tubing, which is very short at the moment and is required for essential industries, for the purpose indicated in the Question, when there are substitute materials for that purpose?

Mr. Wilmot: We would allocate it if advised by the Ministry of Agriculture that it was necessary for full production.

Sir Stanley Reed: Could the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether any of the essential steel tubing has been diverted to the weird rail contraption newly erected in front of the rearmost benches of the House?

Mr. Hector Hughes: Will the Minister say how much of this steel tubing is being allocated to the shipyards?

Mr. Wilmot: Not without notice, I am afraid.

Mr. George Hicks: How much is allocated to the back benches?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF WORKS

Cement Supplies (South-West Area)

Brigadier Rayner: asked the Minister of Works when the various concrete product manufacturers in south Devon may expect to receive an adequate and regular supply of cement.

Mr. Heathcoat Amory: asked the Minister of Works whether, as shortage of cement deliveries is still holding up housing and other urgent building works in the county of Devon, he will take prompt action to increase supplies in that area.

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Works when he expects sufficient cement

will be available in the county of Cornwall in order to proceed with urgent work.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): The arrangements for the supply of cement in Cornwall and Devon have been recently discussed with the distributors, and I hope that the changes now being made will accelerate progress in housing and other urgent work.

Brigadier Rayner: Does the Minister realise that the situation as regards cement in the south-western counties has been very serious for a long time, that the concrete manufacturers have closed down three times this year, and that if they have no proper priority they cannot play their proper part in the building programme?

Mr. Key: The fact that some of these factories were closed down was the reason why we took up the matter.

Mr. Amory: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the impression in the south-west is that they are not getting a fair share of what supplies there are of cement? Will he look into it, and, if he finds that that impression is right, take action in the matter?

Mr. Key: I have been looking into the supply to the south-west because of the number of inquiries I have had. I am assured the proportion of cement that goes there is correct, and that the industry is distributing it fairly and squarely.

Mr. Hicks: Could inquiry be made into the use of lime for building? It is very satisfactory, indeed. Cement then could be kept more for the harder jobs for which it is more suitable.

Mr. Key: I think it is quite likely that if that were done the available supplies of cement would serve a wider purpose.

Mr. Beechman: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that there is now cement available in Cornwall for the purpose of building houses for the people?

Mr. Key: I cannot guarantee that the amount of cement which goes to Cornwall or anywhere else is going to be sufficient to meet the housing needs of the particular area.

Mr. Stephen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Glasgow is getting only a fragmentary portion of cement——

Mr. Speaker: These questions deal with cement for Devon and Cornwall.

Mr. Charles Williams: is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are bitter complaints by housing authorities that their housing is being held up on this account, and that the supply of cement has been for a very long while far worse in Devon and Cornwall than anywhere else?

Mr. Key: As to whether it is worse in Devon or Cornwall than anywhere else, it is a little difficult to say. Housing has been held up, it is true, because of shortage of supplies of materials.

Commander Noble: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much cement is being exported, and to where?

Mr. Key: I gave the answer to that question I think, a few days ago. The export of cement is, roughly, about 50,000 tons per month, going mainly to our Colonies for purposes being sponsored by the Colonial Department.

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Works if he will consider the importation of cement into Cornwall from Belgium.

Mr. Key: Cement may be imported into the United Kingdom under open general licence, and firms requiring cement can avail themselves of this facility.

Mr. C. Williams: Will the right hon. Gentleman make these facilities available and much more widely known, and with much less restriction than at present?

Mr. Key: I do not know what facilities I have to make available. The open general licence is there if applied for, and I think my reply will give publicity to it for those concerned.

Mr. King: asked the Minister of Works how much cement has been supplied to the Culdrose Aerodrome within the last month.

Mr. Key: During the month of June, 101 tons of cement were supplied to Culdrose Aerodrome.

Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that more cement is being supplied to this aerodrome than is being supplied for the building of 72 council houses in the same area? Is not the building of houses more important, and cannot they have priority over the aerodrome?

Mr. Key: I do not know that I am aware of the fact. It is not a matter of according priorities. We try to serve the needs.

Mr. King: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in one week 36 tons of cement went to the aerodrome and only 10 tons of cement for the building of these 72 houses?

Mr. Key: That may be in proportion to the needs expressed.

Richard Cœur de Lion Statue (Repair)

Wing-Commander Hulbert: asked the Minister of Works when it is proposed to repair the bomb damage to the Richard Cœur de Lion statue outside the Palace of Westminster.

Mr. Key: The repairs will be started early in August and should be completed by the end of the year.

Westminster Hall (Roof Repairs)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Works how many workmen are employed in repairing the roof of Westminster Hall; and how long it will take to complete the job.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Works how soon the scaffolding will be removed from Westminster Hall.

Mr. Key: Four carpenters, two scaffolders and two labourers are employed in repairing the roof of Westminster Hall. The work should be finished by about the middle of 1949, and the scaffolding will then be removed.

Sir T. Moore: In view of the fact that the beauty and dignity of this great historic hall are destroyed by this clutter of scaffolding and corrugated iron, would the right hon. Gentleman not consider increasing the labour force, which is totally inadequate, so as to release the hall?

Mr. Key: There are in the hall a number of temporary erections which will have to stop there until the completion of the new building for the accommodation of this House. Because of that, I felt it would be a wrong thing to send labour unnecessarily to complete the roof before the other part of the hall could be completed.

Sir T. Moore: But why the corrugated iron? Is that to hide the slowness of the job?

Mr. Key: The corrugated iron was installed because of complaints I received from hon. Members that, as a result of some of the activities in the roof, things fell upon their heads.

Temporary Office Buildings, Chessington

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Works whether he has consulted the Ministry of Town and Country Planning on the representations made to him by the Surbiton Borough Council in connection with his Department's declared intention to erect temporary office buildings on the Barwell Court Estate, Chessington, inside a green belt area.

Mr. Key: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this building of Government offices is taking place in an area scheduled as a green belt under the Greater London Plan; is he further aware that it has been opposed by the local authority concerned; and does he not regard it as part of the duty of his Department to set a good and not a bad example in the planned use of land?

Mr. Key: Certainly we should set a good example in the planned use of land. The arrangements we have made are temporary; they have been made with the approval of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, and they are being applied for the purpose of setting free other accommodation—housing accommodation in particular—to be used for the purposes for which it was intended.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the local authority has not been allowed to use this area for housing, and that apparently it is the policy of his Department to give priority for the building of Government offices?

Mr. Key: I would point out that these are temporary buildings, whereas houses should be permanent.

Commander Galbraith: Could the right hon. Gentleman say how many years he expects these offices which he designates as "temporary" to stand?

Mr. Key: No, Sir, I could not give an exact answer to that, but I should think 10 years, or something of that sort.

Factory Construction (Barrel Vault Roofing)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Works whether he is aware that if the system of barrel vault roofing is employed in factory construction about two-fifths of the steel required for a steel-frame roof can be saved; and whether, in view of the present shortage of steel, arrangements will be made to use this type of roofing.

Mr. Key: I am aware that barrel vault roofing would effect a saving of steel. There are, however, certain drawbacks to this form of construction for factory buildings, such as the difficulty of providing adequate roof lighting and the need for very extensive shuttering, involving a heavy call on timber. Only a few firms are competent to undertake the work, and I cannot hold out any expectation of a widespread adoption of this method in the near future.

Mr. Janner: Will my right hon. Friend consider taking the opinions of certain architects who have found this system of considerable value; and would he, if possible, save steel by utilising their experience in this regard?

Mr. Key: There is little purpose in saving steel if, as a result of it, we use more timber, which is in equally short supply.

Welsh Slate Inquiry (Recommendations)

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: asked the Minister of Works what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Welsh Slate Inquiry Report

Mr. Key: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to him on 3rd March. Since that date my officials have had full discussions with representatives of both sides of the industry. At the same time, I have arranged for an investigation of the plant requirements of the industry by a well-known authority, who is also examining the technical and economic possibilities of amalgamation within the industry.

Mr. Roberts: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some concern is felt on both


sides of the industry at the rather long delay in getting to grips with the proper mechanisation and new finance; and can he give an indication how soon a real start will be made in reorganising this very useful industry?

Mr. Key: I believe the inquiries of the technical expert are now completed, and I shall be getting a report within a short period.

Slate Supplies, Birmingham

Mr. Shurmer: asked the Minister of Works if he is aware that, whilst there are thousands of houses in Birmingham requiring repairs to roofs, slating firms ordering slates from quarries in North Wales are told that orders for 24-inch by 12-inch slates cannot be executed as his Department are directing all slates of this size to Northern Ireland; and if he will remedy this and direct some of these slates to Birmingham.

Mr. Key: There has been no such direction of slates to Northern Ireland. There are special arrangements for meeting priority requirements whenever they arise, and my regional materials officers are prepared to give assistance in any urgent case.

Abinger Hill School (Alterations)

Mr. Touche: asked the Minister of Works if he will state the expenditure which has been licensed for alteration and decorations at Pasturewood House, Abinger Common; what is the purpose of these alterations; and how many men have been employed there during the present month.

Mr. Key: Licences involving a total expenditure of £4,000 have been granted for the partial reinstatement of Abinger Hill School, Pasture Wood, following derequisitioning after occupation by the military. Forty-five men are at present engaged on the work.

Mr. Touche: In view of the housing shortage does not the right hon. Gentleman think that an undue amount of labour and material is being used in the establishment of this Socialist rest home?

Mr. Key: So far as I know, the main purpose of these alterations is not necessarily the provision of a Socialist rest

home. But if it were, that is of equal importance from the housing point of view, with other housing accommodation.

Mr. Touche: Is this building to be the "Sidney Webb Memorial Home for Fatigued Fabians"?

Mr. Key: I do not know whether it is for fatigued Fabians, but if so it is for people who have earned their rest. Of that I am sure.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Fen Banks (Flood Damage Repairs)

Lieut.-Colonel Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture what progress has been made in repairing the damage to Fen banks during the past two months; and when repair work will begin in the Lakenheath Great Fen area.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I assume that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to embankments in the River Great Ouse Catching Area. The Catchment Board has let contracts amounting to over £150,000 for the restoration and, in some cases, improvement of damaged embankments. In addition, they are employing directly some 500 men, 40 dragline excavators and ancillary plant on other rehabilitation works. The assembly of plant began in the Lakenheath Fen last month, and rehabilitation work started early this month.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: How quickly does the right hon. Gentleman expect that progress to be made in the Lakenheath area? The months ahead of us in which work can be done are very few, and by last week there were no machines working in that area at all.

Mr. Williams: I understand work was started on this in the early part of this month.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is the Minister aware that the contractors working on the 100 ft. river are finding difficulty in getting their barges afloat; and will he look into the possibility of getting floating dredgers in order to ensure that the barges can be used?

Mr. Williams: As the hon. and gallant Member must know, we are very willing to give all the assistance we can, by


equipment or, indeed, anything else. If any shortcoming is made known to us we will certainly try to help.

Tractors

Mr. Haire: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present period in delay of delivery of new farm tractors in the South Buckinghamshire area.

Mr. T. Williams: This varies considerably, according to the make and type of tractor and the distribution arrangements. I am not aware of any exceptional delays in the South Buckinghamshire area.

Mr. Haire: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some farmers in my constituency have found that the delay is as long as a year; and will he take steps to see if it cannot be speeded up?

Mr. Williams: There is a shortage, of course, and I can assure my hon. Friend that we are doing our best to meet the need where the need is greatest. If any case in the county of Buckinghamshire, or anywhere else, is brought to our notice we will certainly try to help, consistent with available supplies.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture what arrangements he has made for maintaining in full agricultural use Casetractors, which are now standing idle owing to lack of tyres.

Mr. T. Williams: My Department have taken up with the Board of Trade the problem of increasing the supply of tyres for replacement purposes. In the meantime, special steps are taken to assist in the provision of tyres wherever it is brought to the notice of my Department that tractors are immobilised, or likely to be immobilised in the near future, for lack of tyres.

Lieut.-Colonel Clifton-Brown: If I bring a case to the notice of the Minister, will he see that the spare tyres are supplied now, when the harvest is getting under way?

Mr. Williams: We are always willing to look at any case which is brought to our notice.

Wages and Prices

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in the special review of farm produce prices now required to meet prospective increases in farm wages, full

weight will be given in fixing new prices for each product to the increased costs that will be borne by that product.

Mr. T. Williams: If the Agricultural Wages Board confirm the proposed increase in wages, the procedure for a special review will be that described in the statement accompanying my reply to the hon. and gallant Member for King's Lynn (Major Wise) on 21st November last.

Mr. Hurd: Does the Minister's reply mean that every farmer, large and small, will be recompensed fully for the increased wages he will be required to pay?

Mr. Williams: No, Sir, I did not say anything of the kind, but referred to the statement made on 21st November.

Major Sir Thomas Dugdale: Is the Minister aware that the uncertainty being created in the minds of all producers, pending the result of the special review, is having a very bad effect on the industry as a whole? Is the Minister satisfied that there will not be a large drop in production as a result of this adjustment in the middle of the cropping year?

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that the sympathy and practical help the Government have given to the industry, during the past seven or eight months, ought to satisfy them that there is no need for anxiety on their part. I can assure the House, as and when the time comes, that the same beneficent treatment will be meted out.

Calves (Slaughter)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he has taken note of the increase in the number of calves slaughtered from 1,004,384 in 1941–42, to 1,441,889, in 1946–47; and if he intends to take any action to encourage the rearing of more calves for beef production

Mr. T. Williams: I am aware of the increase in the numbers of calves slaughtered, although this is not inconsistent with the increase during the same period in the total cattle population. Various measures are already in operation to encourage farmers to rear more calves, but I am examining the question. afresh, in consultation with the farmers organisations, to see what further steps are practicable and desirable.

Grass-Drying Equipment (Manufacture)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture if, in view of the success of the grass-drying scheme sponsored by the Milk Marketing Board in Gloucestershire, which is providing local dairy farmers with a valuable concentrated feedingstuff at economical cost, he has secured an increased allocation of steel for the manufacture of more grass-drying equipment in time for operation next summer.

Mr. T. Williams: I am watching this valuable experiment with the greatest interest, but it has not been in operation long enough for any definite conclusions to be drawn. Meanwhile, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply is aware of the demand for grass driers, and is giving as generous allocations as the steel shortage will allow.

Mr. Hurd: Can the Minister say whether "generous allocations" means that there will be more or less steel allocated for this purpose?

Mr. Williams: I cannot imagine the allocations being less.

Mr. Hurd: Why not?

Working Capital (Borrowing)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, since 87 per cent. of the farms throughout this country are of 150 acres, or less, and many of these farms urgently need additional working capital to enable them to increase their output from the land, he will consider the formation of some organisation or provide some machinery by which it would be possible for them to borrow at interest rate of 2 per cent.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir.

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the real trouble, as the right hon. Gentleman knows quite well, the shortage of working capital for farmers? He does not like this Question and cannot think of a suitable answer. Will he not do something? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that agricultural production has gone down steadily during the last two years under this Government, which is a very serious matter?

Mr. Williams: I thought the answer was very brief, brotherly and effective.

Winter Losses (Loans)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in connection with the compensation paid to farmers for their losses due to blizzards and floods in the worst affected areas in this country, and the reluctance many farmers have in taking charity from their fellow farmers in other parts of the country who also suffered losses last winter, he will consider making an interest-free loan to enable these farmers to restore their stocks.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. I have already reduced the interest charge from 5 per cent. to 2½ per cent. under the Goods and Services Scheme, for the replacement of livestock lost through blizzards and floods, and I do not propose to make any further reduction.

Mr. De la Bère: May we know when the Government do intend to make a real all-out drive for production? Has not the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that agricultural production is the biggest dollar saver, and does not agriculture therefore take priority over everything else? It is not a laughing matter.

Horses (Slaughter)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the exceptional slaughter of horses throughout this country which is taking place, he will now give the official figure of horses used for agricultural purposes at 30th June, 1947; and whether, as this slaughter is having an adverse effect on horse-breeding, he will take suitable steps to ensure that this slaughtering is curtailed.

Mr. T. Williams: The number of horses used for agricultural purposes in England and Wales at 30th June, 1947, is not available, but the number at 4th March, 1947, was 434,000. I have no evidence that the slaughter of horses is having any detrimental effect upon horse-breeding in this country, and therefore, I do not propose to take any special steps to ensure that it is curtailed.

Mr. De la Bère: As the right hon. Gentleman has not the figures I have asked for, how can he tell what has been going on during the last few months? Surely, the Ministry ought to have a


check to ensure that horses are being maintained, as they are of such great value to agriculture?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Member must know that the Ministry asked for returns only on specified dates. Apparently the hon. Member wants us to have weekly returns.

Mr. Walkden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that experts say that there are something like 700 racehorses which will never win a race even if they compete with cart horses? Will he ask these horse slaughterers, and other gamblers and speculators, to turn their attention to these animals instead of to cobs and van horses?

Mr. Williams: It may well be that that is where they have turned their attention.

Vacuum Flasks, Cornwall

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture why the agricultural workers in Cornwall, who require a minimum of 1,500 permits a week for vacuum flasks, have been granted only between 150 and 200 permits; if he is aware that this will inflict hardship upon these vital food workers who are unable to obtain hot meals and have no canteen facilities; and if he will increase the allocation.

Mr. T. Williams: My Department's allocation is only 14,000 permits a month for the whole of England and Wales. The distribution of the permits is undertaken by the farmers' and farm workers' organisations, which consider the relative needs of each county. I regret that the total allocation cannot be increased at present. Agriculture already has a larger share than any other industry.

Mr. Marshall: That is not a satisfactory reply. The agricultural community in Cornwall are not at all satisfied. Is the Minister aware that a Question was asked on 21st April with regard to importation; and that the import licence was refused? Will the Minister review that matter and press his right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade to get something done?

Mr. Williams: I regret that there is a shortage, but the hon. Member's figures vary from time to time. When he put down his last Question, he suggested that

only 1,000 flasks were required. He now suggests that 1,500 are required.

Mr. Beechman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are 16,000 farmworkers in Cornwall and about 16,000 farmers, not including their families, and that these flasks are essential to production?

Mr. Williams: I have already informed the hon. Member that distribution is determined by the National Farmers Union and the Agricultural Workers' Union, who try to meet the needs of each county according to the number of employees.

Mr. Marshall: Arising out of the Minister's answer to my supplementary question, in regard to the 1,500 and the 1,000, I am perfectly well aware of this fact, but is the Minister aware that the demand has increased, and that this is supported by the National Farmers' Union of Cornwall?

Mr. De la Bère: Is it not time that this perfect farce came to an end?

Mr. Fernyhough: Is the Minister aware that these flasks are available in big stores, provided one buys all the picnic equipment which goes with them?

Oral Answers to Questions — WHITE FISH COMMISSION (RECONSTITUTION)

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will now make a statement with regard to the reconstitution of the White Fish Commission.

Mr. T. Williams: Proposals for dealing with the fishing industry which may well involve fresh legislation, are under consideration, but I am not at present in a position to make a statement on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY COMMISSION (UTILISATION OFFICERS)

Mr. Gerald Williams: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many utilisation officers are being appointed by the Forestry Commission; what are the duties of such officers; and whether their services will be available to provide woodland owners with help and advice in the same way as the services of the W.A.A.S. are available to farmers.

Mr. T. Williams: The Forestry Commission have only two utilisation officers at present. These are specialist officers whose duties are to organise, and to advise forest officers upon, the utilisation and disposal of all forest produce. The Commission's forest officers are available to give free advice to woodland owners on all matters of forest management (including utilisation and marketing) in much the same way as the N.A.A.S. advise farmers.

Mr. G. Williams: In view of the great use made of the agricultural advisory services, is the Minister satisfied that every area concerned with forestry will be covered by an officer capable of giving advice?

Mr. T. Williams: We havé at this moment 129 forestry officers, and I presume that if private woodland owners seek their assistance, they will be given advice readily.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING (MISSING TABLE WARE)

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir WALDRON SMITHERS:
62. "To ask the hon. Member for Waltham-stow. West, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, how much Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms' equipment, such as knives and forks, is missing from the House of Commons for the two years ending July, 1947.

Mr. G. Wallace: Is it in Order, Mr. Speaker, for an hon. Member to raise a point of Order on a Question which has not been called?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not. If the Question has not been called, there-can be no point of Order.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the wide importance of this Question, can we not have an answer to it?

Mr. Speaker: People differ in opinion about what is of wide importance.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAVOY HOTEL (BUILDING LICENCES)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Minister of Works (1) the numbers and financial amounts of building licences granted to the Savoy Hotel, Limited, Strand, for the past 12 months;
(2) if he will give an assurance that all building work carried out at the Savoy Hotel, Strand, during the past 12 months was of an urgent character; and whether building licences were obtained in each case where the regulations so applied;
(3) The amounts of materials, &c., in itemised form, issued under licence to the Savoy Hotel, Limited, during the past 12 months.

Mr. Key: Six building licences, involving a total expenditure of £5,891, have been issued by my Ministry and by the local authority during the last 12 months. The work licensed was all necessary, and the requirements of the Regulation have been observed. The only material for which a licence was required was three tons of steel. In addition to the licences for specific building work, a maintenance licence has been granted authorising the annual expenditure of £20,000 on the complete block of buildings of which the Savoy Hotel forms part, including Government offices, shop and business premises, and the Savoy Theatre. A licence for 4 tons 6 cwts. of steel has been issued in this connection.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while we want to encourage the tourist traffic, his statement will cause grave consternation among many hundreds of thousands of workers who cannot find homes in this country?

Mr. Key: I should be very surprised if that was the case, especially when I inform my hon. Friend that by far the largest item was for dismantling and refitting lavatory accommodation to meet the requirements of the medical officer of health for the district.

Mr. Keeling: As the Savoy Hotel receives thousands of American visitors, and earns millions of dollars for this country, are not these Questions misconceived?

Sir T. Moore: Cannot this private vendetta against the Savoy Hotel be carried on elsewhere?

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that his information about essential work is to some extent incorrect? I myself have seen that some of this work is far from being essential?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Coal Production (Conference)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Deputy Military Governor in Germany asked for instructions from his Department before accepting the invitation of the U.S. Government to attend a conference in Washington on the output of the Ruhr; and what instructions were given to him.

The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): His Majesty's Government have accepted in principle an invitation from the United States Government to a discussion of tcehnical questions concerning coal production in Germany. The invitation was addressed to His Majesty's Government, and not to the Deputy Military Governor. The discussions wil be carried out by officials. The exact agenda is under discussion.

Mr. Bramall: Is my hon. Friend aware that before His Majesty's Government issued a statement about this conference, and when there was some doubt whether it would be held, a statement was issued from Berlin saying that General Robertson would attend?

Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that, "statement," is the right description. There was an inaccurate leak.

Mr. Mikardo: Can my hon. Friend say how an invitation to a discussion can be accepted "in principle"?

Mr. Mayhew: It is possible to agree to discuss, before agreeing to what exactly is to be discussed.

Agricultural Machinery (Spare Parts)

Commander Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the amount, by weight, of spare parts for agricultural machinery still remaining at the firm of P. D. Rasspe, Sohne, Solingen, see B.I.O.S. Final Report No. 829, Item No. 31, page 27; how many Bamford and Banslett mower fingers are still there; and what quantity of these spare parts could be used in British or U.S. agricultural machinery.

Mr. Mayhew: This firm had 800 tons of spare parts for agricultural machinery in stock on 22nd July. No Bamford and Banslett mower fingers are among them.

About 240 tons of these spare parts are only suitable for old and obsolete machines, and have been in stock for 20 years; 35 tons of these might be suitable for use in British agricultural machinery, and about 130 tons in American made machinery.

Commander Maitland: Can the hon. Gentleman say what steps the Government are taking to get these spare parts here, bearing in mind that a year ago we were told that a large number of spare parts then in the factory were required in Germany? Cannot we have the remaining parts over here, instead of having to wait another year?

Mr. Mayhew: We have sent inspectors to examine these stocks, but Germany also has her needs, and these stocks may be even more useful there.

De-Nazification

Mr. Bramall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether all authority for de-Nazification has now been handed over to the German authorities; whether their decisions can now be reversed by British authorities; and whether the German authorities now have the right to reverse earlier rulings made by the British authorities.

Mr. Mayhew: All authority for de-Nazification has not yet been handed over to the German authorities. The answer to the second part of the Question is, "Yes," and to the third part, "No."

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that a statement was made, a long time ago. that when the Landtag elections had been held, all authority would be handed over to the Germans, and that such action was taken in Hamburg? Will he take steps to see that His Majesty's Government do not continue their responsibility for the faults of the de-Nazification board?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir, our policy is to hand over de-Nazification. At the Council of Foreign Ministers it was laid down that there should be uniformity of treatment in the various zones, and discussions are in progress to bring that about.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is it not time that this witch-hunting all over Europe stopped?

Mr. Mayhew: Certainly. We want to get the whole problem of de-Nazification behind us.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Is it a fact that the chairmen of the de-Nazification courts are now all Germans?

Mr. Mayhew: That is so, but the findings of the tribunals are still subject to British confirmation.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN

Reparation Claims

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what principles have been laid down by the Far Eastern Commission for the sharing of reparations from Japan and, in particular, if each country concerned can claim, inter alia, for losses suffered by it from Japanese aggression; and for what losses the Russian Government is making claims.

Mr. Mayhew: The Far Eastern Commission have laid down that the shares of particular countries in the total sum of the reparations from Japan shall be determined on a broad political basis, taking into due account the scope of material and human damage suffered by each claimant country as a result of the preparation and execution of Japanese aggression, and taking also into due account each country's contribution to the cause of the default of Japan, including the extent and duration of its resistance to Japanese aggression. From this it will be seen that claims of the Governments concerned are not to be based upon particular losses, but that shares are to be determined on broad political lines.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does this curious algebraical basis of calculation result, for example, in any compensation for Burma?

Mr. Mayhew: We shall put in a claim for Burma under this arrangement.

War Crimes (Trials)

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the trial of General Tojo and other Japanese leaders for war crimes has been adjourned: and on what grounds the

Russian Government has refused to allow certain Japanese generals to be examined at the trial.

Mr. Mayhew: At the request of the defence the Tribunal granted a recess from 23rd June to 4th August in order to enable the defence to prepare and shorten the remainder of their case. Although none of the Japanese whose presence has been requested at the trial, and who are held as prisoners of war by the Soviet authorities, has so far appeared, I understand that the Tribunal knows of no actual refusal by the Soviet authorities to return the prisoners.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN (PARIS CONFERENCE)

Mr. Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made to representations from the Spanish Government regarding the exclusion of Spain from the Paris Conference on European recovery.

Mr. Mayhew: The only representation received from the Spanish Government on this question has been a formal protest against the use made of the name of Spain in connection with a question in which she had not asked to intervene. No reply was returned to this protest.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will take every opportunity of making it clear to the Spanish Government that until their regime changes, His Majesty's Government will resist the inclusion of Spain in any European or international agreement with which we are connected, and that as soon as democracy has been restored in Spain, economic aid will be forthcoming to that country with our help?

Mr. Mayhew: Spain has, in fact, been outlawed by a resolution by the United Nations, and we accept that resolution.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the petulant discourtesy suggested by some of his hon. Friends is never part of an effective foreign policy?

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that the Government of the United States have not raised any objection to the exclusion of Spain from these discussions?

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Detentions (British Subjects)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects and how many persons employed by British missions in Greece were detained during the recent wave of arrests in Athens.

Mr. Mayhew: Three British subjects were detained; one, a British officer of the Military Mission, who was in plain clothes, for being without an identity card; he was released shortly after. The second, an employee of the Military Mission, was released after a few hours. The third, a Cypriot student, is, I understand, still detained. Three Greeks employed by British Missions were detained; one for being without an identity card. He was released shortly after. The other two, a driver and an unskilled labourer, are, according to my latest information, still detained.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend say what representations are being made about the one British subject who is still detained?

Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. Following intervention by our Embassy this case is being carefully reconsidered.

Mr. Tiffany: Are not these ridiculous examples of the way in which arrests have been conducted by these Royalist Fascists?

Political Prisoners

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will call for a report from the British Police Mission in Greece regarding the way in which the recent arrests of political suspects were carried out in Athens, and the conditions in the prisons in which these persons were detained.

Mr. Mayhew: I have already received reports from the British Embassy to the effect that there was no shooting and no organised resistance. Only a small proportion of those detained were kept in Athens. The remainder are not in prison, but were sent off the islands of Ikaria and Ayios Efstratios.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Can my hon. Friend say, in the first place, what representations were made by the British Embassy in Athens about these arrests; second,

whether they were carried out with the approval or on the advice of His Majesty's Government? Further, is not the British Police Mission concerned with the deplorable conditions in the islands, to which many thousands of Greeks have been deported?

Mr. Mayhew: The first two parts of my hon. Friend's supplementary seem to fall outside the scope of the original Question, and the third part refers to the work of the British Police Mission, which is an advisory body for the organisation and training of the police forces in Greece.

Mr. Gallacher: Does not the report which the Minister has received make it clear that this brutal suppression of the Left would not have taken place were it not for the fact that British troops are still quartered in Greece?

Mr. Blackburn: Will my hon. Friend, in view of the lying propaganda on both sides, consider publicising the United Nations report about the frontier areas, and the report from the British Police Mission in Greece, so that the facts may be widely known, and we may not have to listen to this propaganda?

Mr. Wilkes: Will the Minister call for a report from the Embassy in Athens regarding the recent shooting for political offences in Greece of 12 women, the names and addresses of whom I shall be only too glad to give to him after Question time?

Mr. Mayhew: I shall be glad to receive the hon. Member's information. This question refers to the British Police Mission, and the supplementaries are getting very wide of it.

Mr. Tiffany: Is my hon. Friend aware that according to the "Daily Mail" and the "News Chronicle" thousands of people have been exiled to the islands without any charge being preferred against them, and cannot an investigation be made into this sort of barbarity?

Mr. Mayhew: Again, the British Police Mission cannot be held responsible for the conditions on the islands.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that, without any regard to political charges and counter-charges, the British Government


will do everything they can to get humane administration of the law in all parts of the world?

Mr. Benn Levy: In view of the recent strictures made by my hon. Friend about alleged undemocratic behaviour in Hungary and elsewhere, does he not consider it advisable to take this opportunity of demonstrating his objectivity by reprobating comparable behaviour in Greece?

Mr. Mayhew: A question was put down about the report from the British Police Mission. I cannot make a statement on policy with regard to our attitude in the countries of Eastern Europe.

Major Legge-Bourke: Would the hon. Gentleman consider encouraging his hon. Friends to believe that British subjects who are trying to carry out the policy of His Majesty's Government overseas, are inclined to be right before they are wrong, and not wrong before they are right?

ANGLO-SOVIET TRADE TALKS. MOSCOW

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I am glad to be able to take advantage of this first opportunity of informing the House upon the course of the recent trade negotiations in Moscow The House will be aware that following the talk between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Generalissimo Stalin, my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade visited Moscow at the end of April for talks with Mr. Mikoyan, Soviet Minister of Foreign Trade, in the hope of removing the many obstacles which remained before trade between our two countries could be opened up on a substantial scale. At that time the Soviet Government made clear their willingness to supply substantial quantities of grain and as much timber as could be spared for export, having regard to the low production resulting from the war and to their great internal needs for housing and reconstruction. At the same time they indicated to us the goods, chiefly equipment for the timber industry and for the transport of timber, which they would like to import from us. They stated, however, that they regarded it as an essential preliminary to the resumption of trading relations, that

we should so adjust the terms of repayment of the credit advanced to them under the Civil Supplies Agreement of 1941 as to lighten the load of immediate repayment. In particular, they asked for a reduction of the rate of interest to a half of one per cent. for a waiving of the obligation to pay 40 per cent. of advances still falling due in cash, and for an adjustment in the terms of repayment of the credit so as to spread the payments over 12 annual instalments instead of five.
Before my hon. Friend returned to Moscow in June, the Soviet Government were informed that we were prepared to make some concession on the terms of the 1941 Credit Agreement, provided that it was done as part of a comprehensive trade agreement which was of real, substantial and immediate advantage to us. In particular we stressed the need for substantial quantities of cereals out of the 1947 harvest, which the Soviet Government confirmed was a very good crop. The trade talks, which lasted five weeks, were intensive and extremely detailed. They were carried through in a friendly and co-operative spirit, and with complete frankness on both sides. This is true of the meetings between the technical and trade experts on both sides, no less than of the meetings between my hon. Friend and Mr. Mikoyan. The Soviet Government stated their willingness to supply really substantial quantities of cereals over the next four years, beginning with a large shipment out of the 1947 harvest. In addition they were prepared to ship to Britain practically the whole of the timber available for export this year, though, for the reasons I have stated, this is not a very large figure. Canned salmon and crab and certain other items, were also to be supplied to us.
After several difficulties, we had succeeded in reaching agreement on all matters within the trade field, including quantities, prices and terms and conditions of shipment. Contracts for building timber and pitwood were signed, and that for cereals was drawn up and practically ready for signature. Agreement was reached also on the quantities of equipment to be bought by Soviet importing organisations from British firms and arrangements discussed for a purchasing mission to visit Britain for the purpose of signing the necessary contracts with the firms concerned. In addition, agreement was reached on shipping, providing for


the participation of the shipping of both countries on an equitable basis in the Anglo-Soviet carrying trade. Provision was made also for representatives of the two Governments to meet at frequent intervals to review the progress of trade between the two countries, and to consider all possible means of developing it and widening its basis.
But, unfortunately, with so wide an agreement on trade matters, we were unable to reach agreement on the terms of repayment of the 1941 Credit. While we were prepared to meet the whole of their requests for reducing the rate of interest to half per cent., to waive the 40 per cent. cash payment in respect of all contracts not yet signed, and to go some way, at a heavy cost, towards meeting the Soviet request for lengthening the period of repayment of all advances, we could not go the whole way the Soviet Government demanded as a condition of an agreement. In fact in addition to the concession on the rate of interest, and on the waiving of the cash payment, we offered to meet the remaining Soviet demand on the period of repayment as to over 60 per cent. of all the advances old and new. The concessions we were prepared to make involved us in a heavy loss in the next three or four years, and in view of our serious overseas financial position, we could not meet what the Soviet Government, after moving some way to meet us, stated were their minimum terms. The talks, therefore, came to an end and my hon. Friend returned home to report to the Government.
In view of our failure to agree, the position is, of course, that the trade agreement which was practically complete in draft, was not signed, and for our part, the financial concessions we were prepared to offer were withdrawn, leaving the original terms of the 1941 Agreement in full force. I can tell the House that it was not through any want of trying or any lack of effort or reasonable concession on our part that we failed to reach agreement. In addition to the signature of the timber contracts, I think it has been useful to go so fully into all the trading matters and so prepare the way for future trade. In spite of this, we hope, temporary disappointment, it remains the wish of His Majesty's Government that there should be a large expansion of trade between the two countries. My hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas

Trade was given every assurance during the talks that this was also the wish of the Soviet Government.

Mr. Eden: May I be allowed to say that we on this side of the House, at any rate, feel that the Government could not have gone further, particularly in respect of the 1941 arrangements, than they appear to have done, so far as we can follow from the statement. There were reports that there had been difficulties in respect of the price-fixing for wheat and that that was one of the obstacles. Are we to understand from the statement that those reports were unfounded?

Sir S. Cripps: These difficulties were overcome in the last stages of the negotiations.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I did not quite gather from the statement whether the timber agreement which was, I understand, signed is now effective or not?

Sir S. Cripps: It had been signed as a contract but it was, I think, on the understanding that it was part of the total deal.

Mr. Gallacher: After listening to this statement I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the very great importance to this country and to the Soviet Union of such an agreement, and in view of the small difference that seems to exist, another special effort could not be made to get agreement?

Sir S. Cripps: We are most anxious that another special effort should be made and we hope will be made by the Soviet Union.

Mr. Gammans: On what grounds did the Soviet Government suggest that there should be this drastic alteration in their favour of the 1941 Agreement?

Sir S. Cripps: On the ground that it was an agreement signed during the course of the war and in special circumstances, and that now that peace has been in operation for some years it was time to review it.

Mr. Scollan: Could my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an approximate idea of the actual loss that would have occurred to this country if we had conceded the Soviet demand?

Sir S. Cripps: I should require notice of that question.

Dr. Segal: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that no political considerations whatever were allowed to enter during the whole course of the negotiations?

Sir S. Cripps: So far as we were concerned, the answer is "Certainly not."

Sir Arnold Gridley: Assuming the agreement had been successful, what quantity of grain would Russia have supplied to this country and when?

Sir S. Cripps: From the 1947 harvest, one million tons, and from subsequent harvests rather larger figures, as to which details have not yet been fixed.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Are we to take it that although a timber contract has been signed, no timber will be exported to this country?

Sir S. Cripps: I would not personally take that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything m Standing Order No. 14, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock and that the Proceedings on

Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 196; Noes, 89.

Division No. 340.]
AYES.
[3.42 p.m.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Proctor, W. T.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Randall, H. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Gunter, R. J
Ranger, J.


Alpass, J. H.
Guy, W. H
Rees-Williams, D. R


Attewell, H. C.
Hall, W. G.
Reeves, J.


Austin, H. Lewis
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Ayles, W. H.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B
Hardy, E. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Balfour, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Rogers, G. H. R


Barnes, Rt Hon A. J
Herbison, Miss M
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Barstow, P. G.
Hicks, G.
Scollan, T


Battley, J. R
Hobson, C R
Scott-Elliot, W


Bechervaise, A. E.
Holman, P
Segal, Dr. S.


Belcher, J. W
House, G.
Shackleton, E A A


Benson, G.
Hoy, J.
Shurmer, P.


Berry, H.
Hudson, J H. (Ealing, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Beswick, F.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bevan, Rt Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Skeffington, A. M.


Blackburn, A. R
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Skeffigton-Lodge T C


Blenkinsop, A.
Janner, B.
Skinnard, F. W.


Blyton, W R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Boardman, H
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S. W.)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M (L'pt, Exch'ge)
Keenan, W.
Snow, Capt. J W


Braddock, T (Mitcham)
Kendall, W. D
Sorensen, R. W


Bramall, E A.
Kenyon, C.
Sparks, J. A


Brook, D (Halifax)
Key, C. W.
Stephen, C


Brown, George (Belper)
King, E. M
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Kinley, J.
Stross, Dr B.


Buchanan, G.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Burden, T W
Lever, N. H
Symonds, A. L.


Byers, Frank
Levy, B. W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Chamberlain, R. A
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Champion, A. J.
Lindsay, K M. (Comb'd Eng Univ)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Chater, D.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Chetwynd, G. R
Longden, F.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Cluse, W. S
McAdam, W.
Tiffany, S


Coldrick, W
McEntee, V. La T.
Timmons, J


Collick, P.
McGhee, H. G
Tolley, L.


Collindridge, F
Mackay, R. W G (Hull, N. W.)
Vernon, Maj W F


Collins, V J.
McLeavy, F.
Viant, S. P.


Cove, W G
Macpherson, T (Romford)
Walkden, E.


Daggar, G.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Walker, G H.


Daines P
Manning, Mrs L. (Epping)
Wallace, G. D (Chislehurst)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Mayhew, C. P
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mellish, R J
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Middleton, Mrs. L
Weitzman, D.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Mikardo, Ian
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Deer, G.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Diamond, J
Mitchison, G. R
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A B


Dodds, N. N.
Monslow, W.
Wilkes, L.


Dugdale, J (W. Bromwich)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Dumpleton, C. W
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (L'wish'm, E.)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Edelman, M.
Moyle, A.
Williams, Rt Hon T (Don Valley)


Edwards John (Blackburn)
Naylor, T. E.
Williams. W R (Heston)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Willis, E


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wills. Mrs E A


Ewart, R
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilson, J. H


Fernyhough, E.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Woods, G S


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Orbach, M.
Wyett, W.


Foot, M. M.
Paget, R. T
Yates, V F


Gallacher, W.
Parkin, B. T.
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Ganley, Mrs. C S
Paton, J. (Norwich)



George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Piratin, P.
Mr. Simmonds and


Goodrich, H. E.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Popplewell


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
Pritt, D. N.





Agnew, cmdr. P. G.
Grimston, R V.
Orr-Ewing, T. L.


Amory, D. Heathcott
Hare, Hon J H. (Woodbridge)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Beechman, N. A
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Poole, O B. S. (Oswestry)


Birth, Nigel
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prescott, Stanley


Boothby, R
Hope, Lord J
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bower, N.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R S (Southport)
Raikes, H. V.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J
Rayner, Brig. R


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M
Keeling, E. H.
Raid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H W
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E A H
Roberta, H. (Handsworth)


Carson, E.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Castle, Mrs B. A
Lucas, Major Sir J
Robinson, Wing-Comdr Roland


Channon, H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Sanderson, Sir F


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
McKie, J. H (Galloway)
Spearman, A C. M


Crowder, Capt. John E
Macpherson, N (Dumfries)
Sutcliffe, H.


Darling, Sir W Y
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E A (P'dd'ton, S.)


De la Bère. R
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Teeling, William


Drewe, C
Marples, A E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col R A. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt. A
Touche, G. C.


Duthie, W. S
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Elliot, Rt. Hon Walter
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Erroll, F. J.
Moore, Lt.-Col Sir T.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldt. E L
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D
Nicholson, G.



Gammans, L D.
Nield, B. (Chester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Major Ramsay and


Gridley, Sir A
Nutting, Anthony
Major Conant.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1947–48

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a further sum, not exceeding £20, be granted to His Majesty towards defraying the charges for the following services connected with Housing for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1948, namely:


Class V., Vote 1, Ministry of Health
£10


Class V., Vote 4, Ministry of Labour and National Service
£10



£20"

Orders of the Day — HOUSING

3.51 p.m.

Mr. Derek Walker-Smith: We on this side of the Committee, and the increasingly large numbers who follow us in the country, feel that no apology is needed for bringing forward once again the vexed and vital question of housing because it is our duty as an Opposition, to expose failure and to prescribe improvement. It is my particular duty this afternoon to say at once that here is a case in which much that ought to have been done has not been done, and much that has been done has been ineffectively done. The Minister of Health has been active in his own defence, not perhaps by way of reasoned argument, but in his deployment of evasive action and the tactics of the counter-offensive. As I see it, his case, like Gaul of old, is divided into three parts. First, he says that he has done well. Second, that if he has not done well he has done comparatively well, in that he has done better than Lord Addison in a comparable period after the last war. Thirdly, that if he has not even done comparatively well, it is the fault of others; of his colleagues, of local authorities, of the building industry, or of the weather or any possible combination and permutation of causes—always excepting the administration of the right hon. Gentleman himself who, in his own

view, remains a cool figure of commanding competence above the welter of chaos.
It might be thought that it was only necessary to state these fantastic propositions in order to refute them. Nevertheless, stripped of the gaudy and glittering rhetoric with which the right hon. Gentleman invests his argument, that is the case which he has been putting forward to the country; and, judging from the reports in the local newspapers of lesser Members of his party, that is also the party line. I am told that these harangues have had some effect on the, perhaps, less thinking elements of the, community. Nor is it altogether to be wondered at, however regretful it is. After all, Goebbels did define propaganda as simple and constant repetition; and the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are adept at both. In spite of every visual evidence to the contrary they are trying to pursuade the people that their housing record is not the failure that it is in fact.
How do they proceed? They proceed by seeking to avoid battle on the one issue that really counts—the provision of new houses. Instead, in his monthly returns and in his speeches, the Minister of Health talks of the provision of units of family accommodation and even of homes. In the English language the word "home" has a particular, and almost a sacred, significance. It means a house, of course, but it also suggests the carrying on of family life, the sharing of domestic joys and sorrows, so characteristic of our race. Therefore, "home" is a good propaganda word because the people of the country think that a Minister who can provide houses is a good Minister, but a Minister who can provide homes must be a master builder indeed.
But what are these homes of which the Minister speaks in his returns and in his speeches? What are these units of family accommodation? I will tell the Committee what some of them at any rate are. No fewer than 26,967 are requisitioned—but requisitioned from whom? From the rich? Not all of them, by any means. I have many cases in my own constituency of ordinary folk anxious to return to the possession of their homes but unable to do so because those little homes are one small unit in these vain, inglori-


ous, and misleading figures. 3,480 are temporary huts, 11,155 represent temporary accommodation in Service camps. This last is another way of saying squatters, people eking out a difficult and precarious existence in camps which they were only originally able to enter in despite the right hon. Gentleman last summer when he was absent in Switzerland. Is this what hon. Members opposite mean by homes? Is it what they meant when they talked of homes in 1945? I say that the use of such figures in such a context would in any circumstances be deplorable; but in the mouths of hon. Members opposite who built up in 1945 such high hopes of homes in the minds of the people of this country as a means of paving their personal path to power it is a revolting and inexcusable hypocrisy.
What of the new permanent houses? Here the failure of the Minister is spectacular indeed, with under 90,000 houses by the end of May instead of the 220,000 which was the target of the Coalition Government for the same period. The Minister has always proclaimed his dislike of targets. We are beginning to see why. It is because he always misses them. Of his "finish the houses" target of 30,000 last autumn he achieved just under half. He had a target of 240,000 new permanent houses for 1947. That was in January; in April he scrapped the target. It is fair to say that that particular target was not called a target by the Minister; it was called a programme; but it is a little difficult for ordinary people like myself to see the difference. It appears that in the right hon. Gentleman's peculiar and highly individual use of language a programme is a target which he knows he will not hit.
Here, then, is failure. The Minister excuses himself. First, there is his plea that he has done better than Lord Addison. I deprecate this Agincourt technique, this ploughing the sands of the past. [Interruption.] Perhaps I had better say in this case the highly selective sands of the past. I do not want to arbitrate between one Socialist and another; but the Minister of Health makes such a point of this comparison that I feel obliged to state the fallacy on which it rests. The comparison with Lord Addison seeks to compare two unlikes. Lord

Addison inherited a building industry which had slumped in the years prior to 1914 and whose restored activity had not been safeguarded during the years of the 1914–18 war. The Minister of Health, on the other hand, inherited a building industry geared to very high production in 1939 and also the benefits of the wise provision for its restored activity to which such striking testimony was paid in this House in a recent speech by the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks). The sin of Lord Addison, if sin it was, was to fail promptly to reverse a declining situation, but the Minister of Health is guilty of the much graver sin of depressing an upward trend, and of sending the graph of production down instead of up. Nevertheless, while deriding the efforts of Lord Addison, the Minister has adopted, and made his own, Lord Addison's particular sin, the sin of over-centralisation in the planning and organisation of house building. Lord Addison paid the penalty for his faults, of course, to the subsequent enrichment of the Socialist Party. It may be that, under a more dynamic Prime Minister, the Minister of Health would pay the same penalty, to the enrichment of forces and cliques not yet clearly defined.
I now turn to the third of the Minister's points, the alibi argument, the plea in mitigation, that things may not be as good as was expected but that it is the fault of others. It is a vitally important point, because it puts this question: Would progress under another Minister and another Government have been no better, or would we have had more houses if a Conservative Government had been in power? I say at once that the answer to that last question is "Yes." How would we have achieved our greater success? We should have done it by assisting the local authorities and the building industry to make their maximum contribution instead of first frustrating and then blaming them, as the Minister has done. I am satisfied that, generally speaking, both the local authorities and the building industry up and down the country are doing their best, but the Committee must face the fact that in both cases their best is conditional upon the planning and policy of the Minister. Unfortunately, the present Minister, though I understand he is a good plotter, is a very bad planner.
Let us look at the things which are holding up the production of houses, and see whether the Government can escape responsibility. First is the question of materials. As I have said before, there are two aspects of this question, the aspect of initial production of materials, and the aspect of the most effective distribution of such materials as we have. It would not, of course, be fair to fasten on to the Minister the sole responsibility for the basic shortage of materials. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Hon. Members opposite ask me "Why not?" Because that shortage is merely part of the general economic malaise which now afflicts the country after two years of Socialist misgovernment. I have spoken in some detail before on the question of materials, particularly when we had a Debate on the subject in March last year, when the then Minister of Works announced that the Government was going into building materials in a big way. Now we know that the big way has been a big flop.
I want, this afternoon, to say a word as to distribution. The channels of the supply of building materials are clogged by complex priority licensing schemes and by the subordination of the industry to bureaucratic requirements. As always happens, delays and shortages create further delays and shortages. The anticipation of difficulties, and the impossibility of precise planning—which is the main if not the sole function of the building materials industry—leads to hoarding on the part of Government Departments and of the larger local authorities. The existence of those hoards, of course, aggravates the difficulties of ordinary, lesser local authorities and builders, who are at their wits end to get the right materials to the right place at the right time. This question of the availability of materials closely affects another Ministerial alibi—

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to come down from the stratosphere of generalisations to facts? Particularly would he tell us which local authorities have the hoards of building materials?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am given to understand that the London County Council, for example, a great Socialist authority, has never been held up for any

single item of materials, unlike other local authorities. This suggests to the mind that they are holding a reserve—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I have never interrupted anyone in the middle of a sentence—or the likelihood that they are possessing an unnecessary reserve, if the Minister finds that phrase more acceptable, of building materials.

Mr. Bevan: I have been anxious not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his flow of jaded epigrams. Now that he has come to the actual body of his speech, perhaps he will give out some particulars on which his generalisations are based. The only thing which can be described as hoarding which local authorities are practising, is the stacking of bricks on the sites, as they were asked to do last November, in order to complete a continuity of flow from the brickworks to the sites and so that there shall be no hold-up in house production. Apart from that, there is no hoarding so far as I know. The hon. Gentleman should arm himself with facts to support his case.

Mr. Walker-Smith: There will be elaborations, in the local sense, of these arguments. Let me add that there might not be anything morally wrong in having hoards. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] I am about to argue, when the noise opposite subsides, that the rhythm of house building is dislocated If there are hoards or unnecessary reserves of materials they may have been aggregated in quite good faith. They may have been got for use but have not been able to be used because of the dislocation of the house building industry.
I was about to say, before that interruption, that the question of the availability of materials links up with another Government alibi regarding the low output of the building industry. We all know the sad story of standards of output far below prewar standards, despite rising wages, and of a postwar labour force producing only one third of a house per man per year against the prewar output of one house per man per year. I hope that out of the present consultations in the building industry a system of payment by results will emerge. I am on record as being a believer in this system, but let nobody fall into the error of thinking that increased output is merely a matter of increased incentive. That would be to attribute to the building


operatives a universal slackness which would be as uncharitable as it would be unfair. The truth is that we can never hope to get maximum production, or even maximum effort, so long as the men on the job are harassed by the fear that to work quickly means the exhaustion of materials and consequent unemployment. Introduce incentives by all means, but let us not think that that will or can do away with the necessity of ironing out the delays, frustrations, and uncertainties due to non-arrival of materials on the site.
It is not only a question of materials and of labour. There is a third element in house building which is greater than either, and includes them both. I refer to smooth rhythm and execution, the right synthesis, of building operations. It is that rhythm which has been dislocated. I see no signs of improvement. The local authorities are at a double disadvantage. First, they have been misled by the Government; and they are now deprived of guidance. In April, the breakdown to local authorities of the figure of 240,000 houses for 1947 was given. In the same month the figures were scrapped and the Government announced that it would be undesirable to give an alternative estimate. The local authorities therefore have been left in the air, like the Minister's castles.
The second disadvantage is inherent in the nature of contract building. I always try to avoid being technical in these Debates; but it is impossible to understand clearly the difficulties of the local authorities and the building industry without taking into account something of the background and methods of house building. There are two main methods of house building. First, the building and developing of an estate by a private enterprise builder bearing his own risk and taking his own decisions, but subject to the general conditions as to standard of quality and construction of the National House Builders Registration Council, an independent body with 22 organisations represented on it, including local government bodies. Secondly, there is the building of houses by contract builders, so called because they build under contract with a building owner, subject to the conditions of the contract and to the authority of the building owner's architect in the execution of the works and particularly in the specifica-

tion of building materials. Local authority building is, of course, contract building with the local authority in the position of the building owner.
It is very far from proved that contract building is in any case a suitable medium for house building. Contract building is designed and intended for large lump sum contract work like schools, hospitals, factories and so on. There is as great a difference between this sort of work and the mass production of houses, as there is between the production of the "Queen Elizabeth" in John Brown's shipyard and the production of a fleet of motor cars in the Morris Motor Works. Contract building is, therefore, in any case of doubtful validity as a medium for house building. It is taking a sledge hammer for a series of nuts. I know where the shoe pinches in contract building; and here I speak less as a politician than as a lawyer with some little experience of building contract work and perhaps some little knowledge.
Time forbids a detailed analysis of the difficulties and delays inherent in contract house building. But as an example, the Committee may consider the time taken in putting out to tender, tendering and the subsequent approving of the tenders. Here the normal delays are aggravated by the necessity of Ministerial approval, and the possibility of having to cut down the specification in order to get within the sum that will be approved. There is also the power of the architect to specify types and quantities of materials in detail. If, as so often happens, the specified materials are not available, the builder must seek the written permission of the architect to vary the contract by including some other type of material. If he does not thus safeguard himself he finds himself penalised when the final account comes to be settled. If he is a wise man he suspends operations pending that variation. Thus we get recurrent delays simultaneously on every building site in the country, the total of which is an enormous cumulative delay of the house building programme.
There is, today, a combination of basic difficulties and special difficulties. There is the shortage and maldistribution of materials, and there is the further complication that when local authorities are the building owners we get the delays of committee procedure added to the delays


of architects decisions. In these circumstances it would be a miracle if house building were not entirely out of phase, out of rhythm, and subject to every conceivable form of delay and frustration. The miracle has not happened. Hon. Members know perfectly well from experience in their own constituencies that I have described the case as it in fact is.
If further proof were needed, it is readily at hand. It brings me to the one part of the Minister's housing programme which is really going up. I refer of course to the question of costs. Cost is the index of smooth and efficient production. High costs mean bad planning and bad production; and costs are very high today. I have here a specimen of the costs of some local authority houses in different parts of the country. I will take just one or two; a three-bedroomed house at Bridgwater, £1,501; in London at East Barnet £1,600; in the Home Counties at Luton, £1,396; even in Lancaster in the prudent North, £1,434. Those are houses which before the war would have cost about £500 to build. The figures I have given are not final costs but merely the approved tender figures to which ultimately must be added the extras for delays and variations.
The costs are, therefore, about three times prewar and are still rising. The Minister recently made an admission, reluctantly wrung from him by our persistent efforts, that the cost of a 950 super feet house has risen by £110 since early in 1946. This is uncontrolled inflation and shows that the situation is completely out of hand. I argued in detail in March and July last year that the rising costs would defeat the subsidies. I am not citing that to claim any credit as a prophet today, but merely mention the cost position to show how entirely out of rhythm is the production of houses.
I shall not close without trying to add prescription to diagnosis. Here are the steps which I counsel the Minister to take at once. First, in regard to materials, he should do two things. He should at once overhaul the whole machinery of licensing, applications and priorities, removing restrictions on materials no longer scarce, so as to free the clogged channels of supply and let the lifeblood flow once again in the veins of the industry. Secondly, if there is—as I believe there is—anything in this point with regard to

hoards of stores held by the larger local authorities and Government Departments, just as a good general in war forces quartermasters to disgorge their stores for the general good, the Minister should force those stores to be disgorged.

Mr. Sparks: Would the hon. Gentleman say where those stores are? Some of us would like to know.

Mr. Walker-Smith: During a short interval in which the hon. Member was obviously asleep—for which I do not blame him this hot afternoon—that question was disposed of between the Minister and myself.

Mr. Benn Levy: Mr. Benn Levy (Eton and Slough) rose——

Mr. Walker-Smith: I will not give way again as I am just drawing to a close.
Having thus eased the position in regard to materials, the Minister should press for an incentive scheme of payment by results in the building industry, which can only be of use when apprehension of unemployment because of lack of materials is removed, or at any rate sensibly reduced.
So much for the specific question of materials and labour. To restore to building a rapid, smooth and economical rhythm the Minister must also do three things. First, he must reverse the present tendency in local authority building to have a great and confusing variety of forms of contract together with over-rigidity in the specification of materials. What is wanted is a uniform contract—and though I ought perhaps to declare an interest here as a joint author of the annotation of it, I think the R.I.B.A. contract is the obvious standard form—with less rigidity in specification. Only so can the delays of the local authority contract system be appreciably reduced.
Secondly, the Minister must reconsider his four-to-one ratio. I argued in detail on 18th April last year that the ratio was founded on two fallacies, first, that local authority building and private enterprise building cannot usefully and properly coexist, and, second, that local authority building benefits in proportion as private enterprise building is discouraged. Both of the two things are fallacies. Private enterprise building, unfettered by the complexities of contractual procedure


but obliged by the registration scheme to maintain a high standard of construction and design, can help forward the provision of houses enormously if the Minister will only take the weight of his prohibition off its neck.
Finally, the Minister must see that the scheme is allowed to work which is set out in the Ministry of Health circular 92/46 and provides a system whereby private enterprise builders can sell houses to their own specification to local authorities for subsequent letting by the local authorities, thereby cutting out the complexities of the contractual procedure. At present, I am advised, this excellent procedure is yielding results far short of its potential owing to the negligent and restrictive attitude of many local authorities towards it. Here is a chance for the Minister to do some really valuable missionary work with the local authorities. Here, then, are six practical steps which the Minister can take at once——

Mr. Shurmer: What about costs?

Mr. Walker-Smith: They do not involve any grandiose additions to our basic supply of materials, which would be out of place in the present parlous economic state of the country. They certainly do not add anything to the demands for manpower. They are designed to get real value out of the labour and materials we have. They are steps which a Conservative Government would have taken long since, and that is why our output of houses would have been vastly higher than it is at present. The Minister said he has broken the back of this problem. In my view, unless he follows these steps, he is much more likely to break the back of the industry; and perhaps the heart of the long-suffering and patient British people, as well.

4.21 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: We have had from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) a racy and lively attack on the Government's housing policy, and on the Minister of Health in particular. The hon. Member proved to his own satisfaction—though not, I maintain, on the facts—that a Conservative Government could have done better. If I may say so, no one can make bricks without straw more admirably than hon.

and right hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway—when they are in Opposition. However, I do not want to engender any unnecessary heat this afternoon and it is certainly not my job to defend the Government, but I think we have to judge this issue without prejudice, if possible, and on the facts of the situation. Of course we are disappointed. Hon. Members on all sides are disappointed at the progress of the housing programme.
What is the position? The latest published figures show that we are, in the main, back to where we were before the fuel crisis began; that is, we are back to the close season for building, and this at what should be the height of the building season. That is really the grave aspect of the situation. We have, therefore, to revise, quite honestly and fearlessly, the whole of our estimates. The Minister has told us frankly that the target set out in the White Paper in January is now not possible of achievement. The hon. Member for Hertford may argue as much as he likes about private enterprise and local authorities, but the crux of this problem is the shortage of materials and the shortage of skilled labour. He can give us his six points—they were not 14, only six—but to put them all into operation—and some I should be sorry to see in operation, particularly an alteration in the ratio of four to one—would not make any substantial difference in the programme; in fact, it might hang it up in many serious respects.
The question really is how we can use the maximum available resources of material and labour. That is the only problem we have to consider in the present crisis. Therefore, the target must now be not to dissipate our resources on starting houses all over the country, but to concentrate on getting as many houses ready as possible for occupation before the winter and during the winter. The Minister has instituted zonal conferences with a view to getting what he called a balanced programme. I still think much propaganda is needed to bring home to the local authorities the necessity for concentrating labour and materials on finishing houses for occupation. I had a case only the other day from a progressive local authority in my own constituency. At the time the Minister visited that area there were some houses at roof level. Several weeks later they were still not occupiable, and the reason was because


the labour and materials available, were being used for houses at other levels. There must be a great many instances of that kind at the moment. The Minister had a campaign last year to finish the houses up to roof level between the autumn and Christmas. I hope very much that he will have another drive now, in order to finish as many houses as possible with the available materials and labour.
The need for housing accommodation has been acute in the rural areas. It is now becoming critical, particularly in view of the vital need to increase the production of food. The prisoners of war are being repatriated, not as quickly as we would like, but at the rate of 15,000 a month, and they have been accommodated in camps. We shall need something like 100,000 permanent new workers and where will they live? This may hold up the whole of our food production. What are we going to do to meet that essential need? May I quote the position in Aberffraw, a village of my own constituency because it is typical of many other villages? It is a village with a population of 790 people. There are 150 houses, all old and obsolete. Only 40 out of 150 could be called satisfactory by the most elastic stretch of the most vivid Celtic imagination you could find anywhere. Out of that 150, 36 have been scheduled as unfit for human habitation; 64 other houses require extensive repairs to make them habitable under any definition which anybody would think of calling "tolerably habitable."
Let me give two instances of what I mean by obsolete houses. There is one with eight occupants, seven children, sleeping three in a bed in one room and five sleeping in the other room of 70 sq. ft.—that is, large enough for one person only. The other is a parent and six children sleeping in two bedrooms, five in two beds in one room and three in a bed in a room of only 45 sq ft.—that is, not large enough to sleep one. Those are two examples of houses that are unfit for human habitation. I need hardly say that sanitation in the village is primitive in the extreme; it hardly exists.
With all this need for accommodation for new permanent workers on the land, what is being done in that village? We were informed in the last zonal conference that only six houses can be completed at

present. Under the best conditions we might have had 20, and now it is to be only six. That is, six for a village which needs 100 new or reconditioned houses. How shall we get new workers on the land in conditions and in villages of that kind? I agree that that village is probably admittedly the worst, but there are many that come bad seconds and bad thirds in my constituency. How many more are there in how many other villages in every part of Great Britain? I agree with the Minister that this is the result, not of 20 years, but of generations—[An HON. MEMBER: "Under the Liberal Party?"]—no, under the neglect of Tory landlords.
Would it not be possible for local authorities to meet this need if they were encouraged to apply for more Airey prefabricated permanent houses? Tenders have been approved for over 3,000, and the rate of production has been extremely disappointing, as I am sure the Minister will agree. The trouble is that the local authorities are not really interested in the Airey house. They think it is not suitable for the countryside, and they have not therefore made applications for it. Would it not be possible to have an exhibition in London, the provinces, and Welsh centres, of the Airey house, where representatives of local authorities could come and see the house themselves, as they saw the Portal house? If they did so, it would encourage them to give orders for this house. After all, it is vital that something should be done to supplement the building of the traditional houses in the countryside.
There is no doubt at all that the housing programme in the main, is held up by shortages of materials and labour. There are shortages of essential fittings, and work is being held up on building sites for lack of cement—and that at the height of the building season. It is perfectly true that the building labour force is up, but the proportion of operatives on bomb damage repairs still seems to be inordinately high. I do not know whether the Minister could look into that to see whether it would be possible to speed it up. That is quite apart from the very substantial numbers still employed on ordinary repair work, and together the two make an alarming number.
I am informed that in many parts of the country there are pools of labour which may not be available for building


contracts, certainly not for large building contracts, but which could be used on essential repair work. There are pools of labour which are being liberally—or perhaps I should say illiberally—used on black market or non-essential work. I would be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would look into that, to see whether, by tightening up on licences for materials, or some other method, he could get hold of some of that black market labour to supplement building labour, or to release building labour for permanent building. As everyone knows, there is still a serious shortage of key workers, and above all of plumbers and bricklayers. Quite as serious as the shortage of bricklayers, is that the production per man is lower than it was before the war. That is perhaps the most serious factor of all. Conditions and wages are not good in the building trade. On the other hand, employers say that it is very difficult to increase the wages if there is to be no incentive for higher production.
I am very glad to see that two advances have been made in this situation, which seemed to be almost insoluble. I am glad to see that the wartime Defence Regulation—and I hope the Minister will confirm that this is a fact—which forbade percentage payments to building operatives, is to be relaxed. I hope the Minister will tell us something about that today. It has been reported that that is the case, and that the Government will no longer reserve powers to fix a ceiling for wages. It is also very encouraging to see that the unions have now given their executives powers to join with the employers on incentive schemes, because that is the only way in which we can get out of the impasse. We hope that the negotiations will not only prove fruitful, but that they will be speedily concluded, because, after all, time is precious. We are wasting summer months, and in another few weeks we shall be in the close building season in this country.
In the months to come we may very well be faced with the necessity for making cuts in many directions in order to meet our commitments. I hope the Minister of Health will secure and maintain as high priority for housing—as high a priority as the stringency of the times will allow. I am perfectly sure that with his natural pugnacity derived from the natural pugnacity of the race from which

he springs, he will acquit himself well in any ministerial tug of war. I wish him well, and hope that he will acquit himself well, because I do not think we can get the full benefit of education, improved maternity and child welfare schemes, or anything else, while people are condemned to live in bad slums and in conditions of overcrowding.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Mackay: We have heard a very eloquent plea from the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that rural housing conditions should be improved. I agree, but I would like her to relate the situation of which she has spoken to the country as a whole. There are approximately 800 people in the village to which she referred. That, worked out over the country as a whole, means that if the village had six houses, the country as a whole would have 360,000 houses per year. These problems have to be related to the problems of the country as a whole.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: We must not forget that there are more people being absorbed in the villages.

Mr. Mackay: I am not forgetting that. I represent in this House a city which wants 12,000 houses. They are badly needed, and the conditions are just as bad as those in the district to which the hon. Lady referred. They are conditions which ought not to be tolerated in these days. But to provide Hull with 12,000 houses in a year we should build something in the vicinity of two million houses in the country as a whole. We must widen the perspective, and realise that it must be taken in relation to the problem as a whole, and not as an individual problem. We have to ask ourselves what quantity of houses can be built in a year. We never got up to the 360,000 total until 1935, and no one will suggest today that we can get that figure at the present time with the available materials which exist.
The speech of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was more in the nature of generalisations than reality. He suggested six prescriptions as what he would do if he were in power. May I say without any disrespect to the hon. Member, that I am very grateful, and I am sure the


country is grateful, that he is not Minister of Health. I would like to take the Committee through his proposals one by one to see if there is any substance or reality in any of them. There is only one of the six which really merits consideration. First, he wants to review the whole machinery for forms and licences. He thinks that if we could relax controls on materials which are short, and get rid of this sort of thing, we should stimulate the production of houses in this country. As one who has experience of the building industry, having been formerly associated with a firm which had a large number of employees, I have yet to learn that we have any trouble from licensing or any great trouble in the housing problem due to filling in forms, if employers do their job properly in regard to the forms of procedure which are laid down. My firm built some 20,000 temporary houses and a large number of permanent houses. They have never had trouble in securing the materials available because they applied properly. The hon. Member for Hertford suggests that if we get rid of these controls and licensing, we shall improve the housing position.
Surely the problem of materials is a much more real one than he suggests. Before the war, when we built 300,000 houses in a year in this country, we imported two and a half million standards of timber; last year we imported 800,000. That is a much bigger problem in relation to materials. If the Minister of Health knew that he was to get 2,000,000 standards of timber this year, he would know that he could build many more houses. This is fundamental to this question of shortage of materials, which is due not only to conditions in this country but to a shortage of imported materials also. If the hon. Member for Hertford, instead of devoting his time and eloquence to criticising the controls, would spend his time in suggesting ways in which we could increase the importation of timber, he would be advancing a much better prescription.
I was surprised to see that the hon. Gentleman who led the attack against the Minister of Health on housing, had not apparently looked at the schedule given in the latest housing report. One has only to look there to see how short we are of bricks, cement and other products which go to making houses. One can say, as the hon. Member did, that we

ended this war better prepared than we were at the end of the previous war. But that is not true. For example. there was only one-third of the brick-making industry making bricks when peace came. We cannot recover from a situation like that overnight; it takes time.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: That is not what hon. Gentlemen opposite said at the last Election.

Mr. Mackay: If the hon. and gallant Member will only look at what the Labour Party said he will see that in the documents we put out at the time of the Election we said that we would use all the materials available Lo the best purpose, that we would not allow houses to be built for the rich until we had secured that working people had got the majority of the houses built. During the past two years we have gone on carrying out this policy by keeping to the four-to-one ratio, and by seeing that houses were built by private enterprise for local authorities so that they could be owned by the local authorities and let at rents which working-class people could afford
The hon. Member's second prescription was to put an end to hoarding. I suppose he had a great dream last night; he must have dreamt of all local authorities, 1,400 of them, hoarding materials. Actually not one per cent. of them are building houses by direct labour today. The hon. Gentleman would not answer the Minister of Health, so that there was no point in a back bencher getting up to ask just which local authorities are hoarding. I am in close contact with a large local authority which is doing little direct building but it is not doing any hoarding. As I say, there are 1,400 local authorities in the country; I do not know the exact number engaged in direct building but I doubt if there are 30. The others have entered into contracts with private builders. They have no materials—no bricks or other materials—to hoard, except such materials as they may get at the request of the contractor so that he will not be delayed in building houses. I suggest that such a prescription, advanced as one of the ways by which housing can be helped, is merely one of the kind used to fool people. It is one of the kind put out by people who are not prepared to accept the enormous amount of goodwill that is being put into the housing programme, or to face their


constituents and tell them that we are short of the large number of houses we want—a half a million a year which we have never had before—because of shortage of materials, and that all the materials available, are going into the houses which are being built.
I come to the hon. Member's third prescription of incentives—payment by results. The hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey also dealt with this matter. She drew attention to the fact that the regulation that was passed in the war is probably shortly to be ended, and that the trade unions are considering this problem. I would say quite frankly, as an employer in the building industry, that it has been the employers in the industry who have opposed incentives in the past. During the past two years my firm has instituted a payment by results scheme in Hull. They were not members of the employers' federation because they instituted this scheme. That scheme was beneficial, not only in reducing the cost of building prefabricated houses—the cost came down from £98 to £60—but increasing wage rates from £5 to £7 10s. It meant that houses went up much more quickly. The scheme was worked out with the Ministry of Labour and the unions concerned.

Mr. George Hicks: Will my hon. Friend explain that Regulation 56 AB was not designed to prevent payment by results. There was nothing in it about payment by results. As a matter of fact, the Coalition Government introduced payment by results under that regulation, and to talk about its removal being required in order to enable provision to be made for payment by results is not true. The regulation said that what was nationally negotiated between employers and operators should be observed by the whole of the employers and the whole of the operatives in the country

Mr. Mackay: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. The scheme to which I am referring was arranged under Regulation 56 AB. The point was made by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey that the whole objection in the past on the part of the workers to payment by results was the feeling of insecurity, and the fact that it

meant that the job would finish all the sooner, and they would be out of work. That is a perfectly right and proper objection, until we can secure, as is now being secured in other industries, full employment. It is a point to which I will return. Until we can secure full employment in the building industry, the workers have every right to object to a system which will enable them to earn more money for a short period and then result in their being out of work for a long period. The problem which has to be tackled as a social problem in the building industry is to secure full employment for the people in it, and security, not for six months or for nine months but for 10 years, or the whole time during which they are willing and able to work properly. Until we can guarantee the people in the industry that form of security, we have no right to criticise those of them who object to schemes which are going to take away advantages which they would otherwise have.
I now turn to the remaining three prescriptions which the hon. Member put into a scheme of "rapid rhythm." I do not understand what is meant by "rapid rhythm," but I took it that his point was that we should reverse the tendency in local authority building and get rid of the forms used and have a particular type of uniform contract. Why does not the hon. Gentleman read the circulars of the Ministry of Health? If he did that, he would find that the R.I.B.A. contract to which he referred is the very one which they use. It is used for ordinary normal building as well as for prefabricated building. I cannot give the Committee the actual reference, because I have forgotten it, but if they will read the circulars they will see that that is used. A circular on the subject says that the R.I.B.A. form has been supplied to local authorities so that they can adapt it for either type of building without having to go all through the various stages.
The reason for sending it out to local authorities is because, apart from ordinary brick building upon which they can engage, they erect prefabricated houses as well, and by using this method they can hasten the proceedings. The whole purpose is to get rid of tenders. It is to provide for contracts to be entered into directly between building contractors and local authorities. The form of contract is


enclosed with the documents sent to the local authorities so that they can use it. I suggest to the hon. Member for Hertford that instead of dreaming wild dreams about things which have no basis in reality, he should have looked at the Ministry of Health circulars before launching upon his attack.
Then he asked us to reconsider the four-to-one ratio. Really, I should have thought that after two years, the Tory Party would have given up this argument. If they consider the enormous amount of building which must be done, they must realise that there is every ground for laying down, as a fundamental principle by which houses are to be built in this country, that they are to be available at cheap rents. If building contractors desire to build houses to sell to local authorities or otherwise, and if they will build within the limits laid down, they are perfectly free to do that. Of course, the answer is that they are not able to do it at the price and, therefore, we find that the building going on at present works out advantageously not only to the State, but to the local authority and to the tenant. The whole essence of the building programme is that houses shall be built not at rents of 20s. or 30s. a week, or to be bought through building societies, but at rents of from 12s. to 15s. a week. They must be houses which can be let to the people and which, at the end of the period of the subsidy, will not be owned by the rentier or private enterprise, but by the State. The longer we stick to the four-to-one ratio, the better the position will be. I am sorry to have taken up so much of the Committee's time, but when the leading spokesman for the Conservative Party produces this tiny little mouse as a sort of remedy for improving the housing programme, I feel that it is time for someone on this side of the Committee to say, "Really, what does this amount to but, a whole lot of jargon which means nothing?"
The hon Member's last point was that we should allow private builders a greater amount of freedom to be able to work out their own specifications to sell houses to local authorities. That is all very well, but who, in the name of Halifax, is stoping them working it out? There is nothing to stop any private builder in the country building houses at the prescribed amount and selling them to local authorities, and there are 1,400 local authorities who would

willingly take every house they could build. The point is that this programme, in the way in which it has been carried out, has demonstrated to the country, if not to the Conservative Party, that private builders are not able to produce houses as cheaply as local authorities or at any rate, that when a limit is put on the price, they no longer have an interest in building houses of this character.
There are many things I would have liked to say, but I want to stick to the speech of the hon. Member for Hertford. He said there were three things which could account for the position. Either the Government have done well—and that is what the Minister of Health has always said—or they have not done well but only comparatively well, and that is reasonable at any time; or, finally, if they have not done comparatively well the fault was the fault of others. With great respect, I have never heard evidence—and I look forward to the time when someone opposite will produce it—that the Minister of Health has complained that he has not done comparatively well and that the fault has been the fault of others. One of the complaints which has been voiced is in regard to the limitation of available supplies. In the case of the importation of timber, what has the Minister done? He has cut down the amount of timber to less than two standards per house.

Mr. Bevan: It has been cut to 1.6 standards per house.

Mr. Mackay: The average before the war was over three. Before the war, if one had spoken to a normal building contractor—and there are several in this Committee—and suggested that one could build a house with 1.6 standards of timber, he would have been laughed at and told that it was completely silly. I ask hon. Members, in judging the matter before this Committee, to relate whatever they have to say to the facts. If there were 2,500,000 standards of timber in this country, we would have all the incentives we wanted. We would be well on the way to having all the houses we wanted. I will combine the other two alternatives—that we have done well, and that we have done comparatively well. The hon. Member for Hertford says that we should not compare circumstances today with the period after the last war because then the building industry was not organised as it is now. I ask him to look at a few


facts. At the end of the 1914–18 war the Coalition Government prescribed that in the first three years they would build 500,000 houses. They considered that that figure was right and they laid it down as their building programme. In the first three years they built about 150,000 houses, and in four years they built something in the vicinity of 200,000. The average for the first five years after the 1914–18 war was, to be very generous, 60,000 a year.
What have the Government done since the end of the war? Apparently, people must be reminded of these figures. In the period since the end of the war-roughly two years—we have provided housing accommodation for approximately 400,000 people. I know that the hon. Member for Hertford will say that homes are different from houses. All I know is that after the 1914–18 war we did not have the problem of bomb damage. We were told today what a good thing private enterprise had done in building so many permanent houses. No one pointed to the fact that local authorities have also been doing that job as well as building temporary houses.
I think it is time that figures were brought to light. The Ministry takes the trouble to publish monthly figures. Judging from his speech the hon. Member for Hertford, does not bother to read them. I want to give the Committee the figures up to the end of May, both for local authorities and private builders. Local authorities built 47,726 new permanent houses, and private enterprise built 41,465. Local authorities rebuilt 4,063 war-destroyed homes, and private enterprise rebuilt 6,226. Local authorities erected 111,029 temporary houses, and private enterprise built none. Some hon. Members appear to take the view that temporary houses are very temporary indeed. I suggest that they should inspect some of them and they will see that they will last from 60 to 80 years. In many cases the only difference between a permanent house and a temporary house is that the temporary one has only one storey. Conversions of existing premises, 30,469 by local authorities, and 14,907 by private enterprise. Repair of houses damaged during the war, and places badly blitzed during the war, which were un-

fit to be occupied and had to be repaired before they could be used, 107,727 by local authorities, against 15,335 by private enterprise. That gives a total of homes and houses, because to me the two things are completely synonymous——

Mr. Walker-Smith: Does the hon. Member call huts and temporary squatting in Service accommodation "homes"?

Mr. Mackay: The hon. Gentleman, if he had listened to my speech, would have known that I was not referring to huts.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I was.

Mr. Mackay: When the hon. Gentleman was speaking, he did refer to huts. He spoke of 3,000 temporary huts out of a total of 400,000, making an enormous point out of it. If he had stayed to listen to the Debate, he would not have made such a foolish interruption as he made just now as I was not including huts; and, if he wants to take further part in this Debate, I suggest that he sits and listens and understands what is being said, and then, when he understands, he can interrupt. The point I was making was that, in that period, we had 301,000, plus 78,000, making a total of 388,000 houses, which is the number of families for whom living accommodation has actually been found by this Government.
Then there was the suggestion by the Coalition Government that, at the end of two years, we should have 300,000 houses built or building, with a possibility of 230,000 completed in two years. That programme was laid down at the end of 1945, before the end of Lend-Lease, and before the Conservative Party of this country had wakened up to the possible economic circumstances which would face this country after the war. Let us take that as just a pious hope. The Government have doubled those figures within the same period. I think it is about time that hon. Members opposite were more honest about these figures, and told the people quite frankly what the housing difficulties are, and that they should face the realities, and in particular, examine the timber position.
I do not mind what comparisons hon. Members opposite make if they will take into account the relevant circumstances I will take the paradise of America, and show what America has done. The American population is


approximately three times ours. We should, therefore, expect that their housing figures would be roughly three times ours. They are not dependent on imports of materials as we are, they are not short of labour as we are, and they have machinery necessary for building houses which is far in advance of ours. They were able to carry on the war without in any way interfering with their ordinary consumption programme in the normal way, and their war industry was able to function efficiently without any dislocation of their normal programme. In the main, we would expect their progress to be much greater than ours, considering all the difficulties and restrictions which we have had to face. By the end of 1946 they had built 662,000 houses, while we had built 310,000.

Mr. Bevan: My hon. Friend is making a most remarkable speech, but I would like to say that the figure he quoted includes trailers.

Mr. Mackay: I am glad of that interruption, because I was going on the basis of putting the case so low that no one could criticise it. The rent of these houses, including the trailers, is £3 14s. a week, against 12s. to 18s. The selling price, against our £1,200, is from £2,000 to £2,500. The number of houses let in America is about 30 to 35 per cent. against our 80 per cent., and in 1946, they started 860,000 houses, whereas we started 300,000. I do not mind from where hon. Members opposite take their figures, provided they will relate them to the circumstances. If they will take a comparison with America, as I have done, they will find that there is just as great a housing shortage in America as there is here. One-third of the houses in America have no bathrooms, and another third have no inside lavatories. Housing conditions are just as bad there as they are here. When we take the comparison with America, we see how, because of Government control exercised in the use of building materials and in the type of house to be built, we have met a much greater social need in the two years since the war than has any other country taking population into account and in comparable circumstances. The hon. Member for Hertford said that the Minister claims that this Government has done well; we know that, even with the great limitations on the housing programme, we have done well.
I would like to emphasise what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey. I think we should reorganise the building industry and make it more efficient. I think that we shall be able to overcome a lot of our economic troubles at the present time, but, for greater progress in housing, we shall need to reorganise the building industry itself. We are, today, to give one small example, building 80,000 prefabricated houses by the use of different methods of construction, and these houses are of 40 different types. That is not mass production, in the sense in which I understand it. That is not the way in which we should be organising the prefabrication industries of this country. We may be building one type of house in aluminium, one in steel and one in concrete; but I think hon. Members opposite should realise that, in the two years following the war, private enterprise has let down the Government and the country in the field of prefabrication. If we are to have prefabricated houses, we want them mass-produced, and, if we are to have mass-produced houses, we should have the smallest possible variety and the greatest possible quantity that can be produced of each type, whether concrete, steel or aluminium. The building industry has never organised itself. The private enterprise spirit was so strong that it was not prepared to sacrifice something for the benefit of the country as a whole.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the hon. Member claiming that the prefabricated house has been built by the small builder, and that, in regard to the aluminium houses, production has been limited by the firms who make them? Surely, it has been limited entirely by the Government?

Mr. Mackay: I appreciate the hon. Member's interruption, but if he had been listening, he would realise that I never said anything like that. The aluminium house was produced by one firm, and they produced of one type about 50,000. Take the case of the concrete houses. There are 58 different types of concrete house on the market today, not one. That is not mass production. If the people who are running these private enterprise businesses had had initiative and ability, they could have done better. The Minister has said that private enter-


prise should build along with local authorities so that there would be no running away with rents, and so that people could have cheap houses. Private enterprise has failed lamentably to show ability in regard to both the steel and the concrete house. We ought to be getting more production than we are getting.
Complaints have been made that people should work more. I frankly feel that the matter is more in the hands of the employers than the employees, and that they should put their house in order. There are over 100,000 building firms, of whom 38,000 are one-man firms, 50,000 have fewer than 20 employees, 11,000 fewer than 100 employees. There are very few of the big type of builder in the industry. This is where reorganisation is necessary. If hon. Members opposite wanted to criticise the Minister for his housing policy, they might have said that the building industry is the most archaic and inefficient in the country. It has not been reorganised for years. Largely owing to the fact that its work is out of doors, it does not allow of the same reorganisation as in factory management. Conditions in the industry are very bad, and it is only recently that the workers in it have had a week's paid holiday. Even today, in bad weather, they have to wait 32 hours before they get anything. No industry, the mining industry not excepted, has such bad conditions as the building industry. The hon. Member for Hertford raised the question of price; this is tied up with the overheads of an inefficient industry.
In conclusion, I want to say that there is an obligation on hon. Members, at times when things are difficult, when we have shortages due to the war and the condition of the world today, and when, being without coal, we cannot buy timber and things of that nature, to give the facts to the people of this country. I would willingly join any hon. Member in suggesting to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health ways in which we could get improved conditions in the building industry. I have already indicated some of the ways in which it can be done. But the six prescriptions which were given this afternoon are a mere bagatelle in a problem which has been tackled more courageously after this war than any Conservative Government tackled a similar problem after the last war

5.13 p.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: We are debating a subject which is topic No. I in the minds of many thousands of people in this country, and we are also trying to debate the causes for the catastrophic failure of the Government to live up to its election promises. We have heard a very long speech from the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay). This is the second time since I have been a Member of this House that I have heard the hon. Member say that he found no difficulty whatever in obtaining building materials and licences. That is a very significant statement, coming as it does from a Socialist Member of this House.

Mr. Mackay: Mr. Mackay rose——

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I do not propose to give way to the hon. Member. Perhaps he will first listen to what I have to ask him. How is it that he finds no difficulty while the building contractors that I know in the South of England complain of, and can show proof of, dilatoriness and inefficiency in regard to licences?

Mr. Mackay: I do not know the hon and gallant Gentleman's friends or what intelligence they use in the matter When one employs 4,000 people on a building programme, one has to fill in a lot of forms. We have no difficulty in filling them in, just as many people have no difficulty in filling in football pools. The answer is that if people in the building industry would realise that a form of control has been instituted and would not kick against it, and would say "This is the normal way; we must apply ourselves to the problem and understand and use the machinery that exists just as do other people," they would have no trouble.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The hon. Gentleman has confined his answer only to the filling in of forms. I should have thought that was an over-simplification, because anybody who applies himself to the matter for five minutes can fill in any form, but whether, when the form has been analysed by a Government Department, he gets any information of the slightest value out of it, is another question.
I would like to follow the hon. Member for North-West Hull a little further. He produced various reasons for the shortage of houses in this country—the shortage of labour and the shortage of


materials—but he did not mention the stock reason—the bad winter. I was very interested in his argument with regard to the question of building incentives. He said—I think I am quoting his words correctly—there must be no question of building incentives while there is any danger of unemployment.

Mr. Mackay: All I said was that one can well understand the attitude of men who have been unemployed in the past. They feel that, with incentives, the work will be finished so quickly that they will be out of work again.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Surely, the hon. Member must realise that there is no question of unemployment in this country at the moment. If hon. Members opposite use the excuse that there is a shortage of labour, then, I maintain, there must be incentives to further production. [Laughter] I am not in the least put off by the various chuckles from hon. Members opposite; it only means that they are unduly sensitive on this matter. As always, when we are debating a subject in this Chamber which it is difficult for them to defend, they use the old propaganda about what the Conservative Party did in the past, and continue in that vein, and then endeavour to deride any hon. Member on this side who tries to be constructive.
The winter has also been blamed for the shortage of houses. But statistics, which are based on 50 years of experience, and by which the weather rule is calculated, show that, in the past, the percentage of time lost in the winter was 11½ per cent., and reliable statistics for this winter show that it was 25 per cent. Therefore, the only difference in the actual shortage is in the nature of 15 per cent. Surely, hon. Members opposite are not suggesting that 15 per cent. has any relation whatever to the shortage of houses at the present moment? The truth is that the Government, as we on this side have said over and over again, have placed reliance, for purely ideological reasons, on an instrument which is totally inadequate and unsuited to the task in hand. The results forecast are now proving to be correct. It is characteristic of a private builder that, when he is building, his solvency depends on the completion of the work in the shortest possible time. The result is that he starts where he knows that there is a reasonable

certainty of completion within a specified time. Whereas the local authority under pressure from the Ministry, are able to put out houses to contract for erection in places where there is no possibility of their completion, while the contractor himself is subjected to every form of hampering and bureaucratic control.
The situation is aggravated by the four-to-one rule which emphasises the inherent inefficiency in these methods of dealing with housing construction. I would like to say a word about this ratio. I know it will be adhered to by hon. Members opposite for purely ideological reasons. They suggest that in this way a certain class, which they claim to represent, will get better houses more quickly than under any other scheme. One can discuss this matter for hours, but I would like to put one point to the Minister. Does he not realise that the so-called middle-class, or whatever he likes to call them, for whom he does not appear to want to build houses, are occupying those very council houses which are being built by the local authorities, and are preventing the working classes from occupying them? If the private builder was allowed to build houses for the middle class, the houses built by the local authorities would be available for the working class.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows absolutely nothing at all about housing.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The hon. Gentleman says that I know nothing at all about housing. The point I am making at the moment is in relation to the four-to-one ratio.

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the houses which are being built for the working class are being occupied by the middle-class. Does he not realise that up and down the country nearly every local authority has a points scheme to which they adhere rigidly, irrespective of the station of life of the individual?

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I am fully aware of that——

Mr. Shurmer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the middle-class——

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: May I give an answer to the hon. Gentleman, or is he frightened of what I am saying, and trying to shout me down?

Mr. Shurmer: No, I am not shouting the hon. and gallant Gentleman down.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I happen to know by heart the points scheme in my local authority. I also happen to know that a large number of people who have got points in that scheme are ex-Servicemen, who have got them for one reason or another, or for any of the reasons which are laid down in the priority scheme. But a large number of those people are middle-class people and the only way in which they can get houses is by going to the local authority for them. If the private builder could build houses for them, they would buy the houses and there would be more accommodation for the others.
There is one other point that I would like to raise, and I am now asking for information. I may be wrong, but I am under the impression that the private builder is still limited to the £1,300 maximum except, I think, in the London area. The private builder has been taunted by hon. Members opposite because he does not wish to build houses at that price. Is it not rather peculiar that local authorities also find that they cannot build houses at that price, and are having to build them at £1,400, £1,500 and £1,600 upwards? Why should there be this discrimination against the private builder, except on entirely ideological and party grounds, and no other? Perhaps that question might be answered later on.
Having engendered a certain amount of heat on this warm afternoon, I would like to introduce one or two constructive proposals, as a change from what we hear from hon. Members opposite. I would like to make a very simple suggestion—and I hope it is not a great over-simplification of the problem—to ensure that licences are not issued against non-available materials, because that is what is happening. Licences are being issued in a haphazard manner all over the country, without any relation whatever to the availability of materials, and I suggest that there should be a tie-up between the two, because if anything causes disappointment and frustration, it is that. I have a rather revolutionary suggestion to make, and that is that licences should be issued on a long-term basis. They should be issued, if you like, on a different coloured piece of paper, stamped on them, "Not valid

before such and such a date," and should be tied up with the B.M.A. and the priority schemes. The advantage would be that the contractor would be able to notify his merchants of his long-term plan and policy, and of the likelihood of certain eventualities arising. It would assist the building industry enormously in many ways. I have had this suggestion made to me by many builders, just as big as the hon. Member for North-West Hull. I would like to hear from the Minister some comments on that suggestion, and I would like to know whether it has already been thought of by the Ministry or not. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that it would give rise to a black market, because that could quite easily be prevented.
I have in my constituency—and I understand this applies all over the country—an example of the question of indoor conversion during bad weather. I believe that there has not been anything like enough energy, foresight or thought devoted to this matter. Close to me is a large hospital which belongs to the L.C.C. It was requisitioned during the war, but it has been standing empty for two whole years. I asked the other day what was to be done about it, and I am informed that the matter is still under consideration and that no decision has yet been reached. Knowing, as I do to my cost, the lack of availability of hospital space in London, this is very serious indeed. However, it would be out of Order to debate that matter, but I will talk to the Minister about it privately if he likes. It seems almost unbelievable that a hospital should be standing empty for two years while in my constituency 2,000 people are wanting homes, some of them living five in a room, old ladies living with young boys in the most appalling conditions, and nobody has thought of converting this hospital into temporary flats during the wet weather. It has got everything that could be required. I trust that next winter something will be done about it.
I ask the Minister to look into the question of maldistribution. I can quote an example of an area in which all the taps arrived, but no baths, while 60 miles away all the baths arrived and no taps. If that is not the sort of "cock-eyed," crazy maldistribution which is the result of Government control, I do not know what is. It is the sort of thing from


which we suffered in the Army at the beginning of the war.

Mr. Bevan: I do not wish to interrupt my speech later on to deal with that point, but, as a matter of fact, it has nothing to do with us. It is a case of intelligent co-operation between the building merchant on the one side and the contractor on the other side, both of whom are a part of private enterprise.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Surely, the taps and baths are controlled by the Minister?

Mr. Bevan: No.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Then is no priority given to various sites?

Mr. Bevan: There is no priority about sites.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: The matter could be co-ordinated if necessary. The trouble about it is that the Minister does not know what is going on under his nose. Another point, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) referred, was the question of hoarding. He did suggest that there was hoarding on the part of the Ministries as well as on the part of the local authorities. I am not taking up this question of the local authorities, but I am going to take up—because I was going to anyhow—the question of hoarding on the part of the Ministries. I cannot quote exact chapter and verse, but what I can say is that every building contractor in the country says that it is going on; and there is no smoke without fire. It is vitally important that house building be brought back "into phase." The longer this is delayed the greater will be the dislocation. Having encouraged this situation and distortion, it is up to the Government now to take stringent steps to see that things are put right. I dare say it is difficult for them to admit their failure, but it is their bounden duty to do so, and to come forward and accept the odium and responsibility for it, and give a quota system on an area basis, indicating how quotas are to be filled.

5.31 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I am delighted that after the lapse of a year—a full year—the Committee has another opportunity of debating the housing programme of the Govern-

ment. It is, perhaps, rather extraordinary, in view of the hyperbole used from the benches opposite concerning the housing programme, that the Opposition have permitted a whole year to elapse before asking for a Debate on general housing. That omission on their part, of course, can be explained by those who have been present at previous housing Debates; because whenever the Opposition have sought a housing Debate the consequences to them have been so catastrophic that they have avoided asking for another for some time. Indeed, the Front Bench opposite at present carries the political corpses of those who opened previous Debates.
I was expecting today that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) would open the Debate on behalf of the Opposition, but previous experience has taught him, perhaps, that discretion is the better part of valour, and he left that to his hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), who, after the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), joins the political corpses on housing Debates; because rarely in my experience have I witnessed an opportunity so woefully missed. I rejoiced at the thought—despite the fact that I had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have plucked up courage at the last moment to open the Debate—that they entrusted the opening of the Debate to a back bencher who, by family association, would be expected to have some knowledge about housing. But he has missed his opportunity; and not only missed his opportunity, but he has deserted the Committee. I really think that it is up to the acting Leader of the Opposition to see that, when he invites one of his hon. Friends to open a Debate in future, he had the courtesy to remain in the Committee whilst the Debate is continuing.
However, I do not want to engender too much heat because, after all, it is not a very cool day, and I should like, therefore, to leave the hon. Member for Hertford where he has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull, and discuss some of the things that I rejoice I have the opportunity of indicating to the Committee. It is unnecessary—or ought to be unnecessary—to spend very much time on this subject in giving facts, because I doubt very much whether there has ever been a


great national operation carried out in this country which has been more fully publicised than the housing programme. We issue reports every month, and have done so ever since the end of 1945; which, judging from their questions and judging by their speeches, are almost entirely neglected by hon. Members opposite. Therefore, I am exempt from the obligation, I hope, of giving many of the figures which are contained in those reports.
We have stated before—and, perhaps it is wise to restate them—what are the main objects of the Government's housing policy. These objects are to build as many good permanent houses as quickly as possible; and to see that the houses which are built go to those who are in the greatest need of them. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) gave evidence that that is being done, because he complained, in the course of his speech, that in very many instances, houses which are being built by local authorities are being let to middle-class persons. Well, surely that is exactly what we want to happen. If those middle-class persons are persons in need of houses more than others, they have a claim to them.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Has the right hon. Gentleman completely missed my point?

Mr. Bevan: I am coming to that point.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: My point was——

Mr. Bevan: I know.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Those people would be willing to buy their houses.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. and gallant Member was not obscure. I understood him. He said that those people would have been perfectly content to buy their houses. Yes, but we are not content to permit them to buy them. It has been part of the Government's housing policy that modern housing estates should contain people of mixed income groups, and we do not want to have a repetition after this war, of what occurred in the years between the wars—whole estates occupied by stockbrokers, telling each other on the trains to London all the stale jokes of the Stock Exchange. This has been laid down

as one of the chief objectives of housing policy.
I hoped that I had taken the Opposition with me there, because I always thought it was universally accepted as good housing policy that we ought not to have housing estates in which income groups are segregated from each other. Indeed, I have listened on more than one occasion to hon. Members, who have spoken in other connections, and when not merely making party speeches, speaking about the virtues of the old English country villages. Those virtues consisted solely in the fact that the village contained all the mixed elements of the population living, almost all of them, in the main street. Therefore—and I am sorry to make this digression, but it is a very important aspect of housing policy—we should rejoice at the fact that many of the council houses are being occupied by persons who, normally, would have occupied Suburbia in the years between the wars.
I should like to learn from hon. Members opposite what I have asked them on a number of occasions: To whom would they have entrusted the selection of tenants of houses to be built after the war years? We decided that they were to be entrusted to the local authorities. Speaking now not about the building of houses, but about the selection of tenants for the houses built, do hon. Members opposite consider that the local authorities are less worthy to be entrusted with the finding of proper tenants for houses than builders are? Builders select the people who will buy the houses irrespective of need. Local authorities select the tenants to occupy the houses in relation to need. I ask hon. Members opposite once again: To whom would they have entrusted the selection of tenants? I get no reply, and I make a prophecy: we will not get one. That is a question which the Conservative Opposition has always dodged.
When my predecessor as Minister of Health was in office he made the policy of the Conservative Party quite clear before the Election. He said: "I anticipate that the vast majority of the houses built will necessarily be provided by the local authorities in the extraordinary difficulties of the two years we are now considering." I have asked before, and I ask again—because this has been challenged today by the hon. Member for Hertford


—do the Opposition still stand by that principle? If they have departed from it, by what principle do they stand? Because, in fact, all I have done in this housing programme is to carry out in the post-election years the inspiration of the Conservative Party in the pre-election period. On this there is a genuine coalition—and it is the only kind of coalition I am prepared to consider. A year ago the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in opening the Debate said:
It is all too clear that the right hon. Gentleman's choice of instrument has been mistaken."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 793.]
Of course, the post-election Conservative Party do not say the same things as the pre-election Conservative Party. We all understand that. Nevertheless, it is still difficult to deduce from those two statements what is the position of the Conservative Party Opposition.
The right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), in a speech in which he made one of his few references to housing, said: "We want all the agencies, no matter what they are"—because, of course, the right hon. Gentleman is always expansive. "We want all the agencies; stimulate all of them to build houses wherever they can, whenever they can, and as many as they can." That may be described as a plan. I describe it as simply empty rhetoric, because with limited physical resources—for that is the circumstance and context in which we must consider this subject, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull said—we must decide whether to use those limited resources in providing houses for those who stand in the greatest need of them. That is what we have said we would do, and the result of our having so decided has already been described.
The fact that we have provided, in less than two years and at the end of six years of war, more than 250,000 homes, in addition to effecting bomb damage repairs is not due to any administrative superiority which this Government possess over the Government of 1918. Not at all. It is not due to any administrative superiority that I might claim to possess over Lord Addison. Not at all. It is due to the superiority of the Socialist principle over the Tory principle. Because what we have done in two years

is to deny to the building industry the right to build luxury buildings while people are needing houses. When the right hon. Member for Southport replies he might challenge that. I should like to put a number of questions to him, as he would put them to me if I were going to follow him in the Debate. I should like to ask him those questions, not because I wish to lay for him any dialectical traps, but in order that the whole thing may be elucidated, for one of the virtues of having a Government and an Opposition is that the nation might have placed before it two alternative sets of principles. Then, if the nation turn us out, they know why they are putting the other people in, and I want to assist the Opposition in making its case clear to the country. I want to know from them: Would they have had any control at all? Would they have allowed building resources, as such, to flow freely over the whole field of building? In other words, if the people wanted—and the hon. Member for Hertford intimated it——

Mr. Walker-Smith: No.

Mr. Bevan: Oh, yes. He said that the contract builders are not accustomed to building houses and that, therefore, the building of houses ought to be left to those accustomed to doing it. That was the argument. Would he have left the contract builders to build cinemas, skating rinks, restaurants and hotels, or would he have had an overall control? Would he have said: "Oh, no. You won't be allowed to build what you like. We will have to control that "? Would he have had controls at all? The assumption is that the Opposition would have had one primary control, that they would not have permitted the resources of the building industry to-be spent anyhow; they would have said that those resources must first of all be funnelled into the priority class, and presumably that priority class would have been factories and houses. If I am allowed to assume that without challenge, the centre of the hon. Member for Hertford's case collapses completely, because if the building resources of the building industry are concentrated, as we have concentrated them, on factories and houses, then the contract builder had to be brought in. No one could deny that.
Therefore, we are to assume that there ought to be a primary control. And re-


member, that primary control is open to all the objections that hon. Members opposite make to any kind of control, in stopping people doing what they want to do. Indeed, when they are stopped doing what they want to do, they fill the "Yellow Press" with protests about it, as they have done for two years. All that has been appearing in some of the newspapers supporting hon. Members opposite has really been a demand for certain builders to deny houses to the poor and to the ex-Service men, and to build luxury houses for the rich. If the Opposition do not accept that to be the case, would they have denied luxury houses to the rich? That is the question. If they would have denied luxury houses to the rich, how could it have been done without control?
When we come to the priorities within the overall priority, we then have to decide which particular priority has most claim. We decided that it was necessary to make an allocation, and that allocation was that 60 per cent. of the available building force should be concentrated on housing. The first claim I make for the Government's programme is that the main objective has been realised. Over the last two years, by means of all these controls, all these objectionable forms and all these denials of self-indulgence, roughly 60 per cent. of the building force of Great Britain has been compelled to obey the overriding Socialist purpose. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull has said, when we are speaking about local authority building, we must speak also about the temporary housing programme, because that programme has, in many respects, used up as much labour and material as permanent houses would have done. And so, we have provided that the main part of labour should go in that direction.
We also decided that we should have a four-to-one ratio. I do not know what hon. Members are really complaining about. I have got a complaint. It is the complaint that the four-to-one ratio is too generous to those who can afford to buy houses, and I will make them this promise: it will be altered if the material situation worsens. If we have to accept a constriction in our overall housing possibilities, then houses built for selling will be almost entirely excluded. If hon. Members opposite demand, as they are

always doing, Draconic measures from the Government, they must expect the shoe to pinch sometimes where they will not like it to pinch. If we are to be denied material sources, we mean to see that that denial is not at the expense of the worst off members of the community. The second claim I make for the Government's housing plan is that over all this field, with all its complications, with 1,469 authorities to manage, and with scores of licences with building firms and hundreds of thousands of building sites to manage, we have, over the last two years, kept to the four-to-one ratio, and for every one house that has been built for sale, four houses have been built for renting. We have, in fact, achieved our main objective, if we always accept the temporary housing programme.
The third claim is this: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport will give me his attention, because I am hoping that he is going to do his best to answer the Debate this time. It was complained against us, and it has been repeated today by the hon. Member for Hertford, and by many others, especially by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) in the country, that we have selected the wrong building instrument and that we have not harnessed the resources of private enterprise. I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to speak with exactly the same scrupulous accuracy outside as in the House of Commons, but he ought to come somewhere within the orbit. He said that we ought to have entrusted this job to private enterprise. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull has pointed out, we have entrusted it to private enterprise. When it comes to the local authorities, they have a case—against whom? They have a case against private enterprise. At no time since the housing programme started has the private builder been unable to build because he has not had contracts from local authorities.
We have had complaints from hon. Members opposite, usually uninformed, and almost entirely quoted from the headlines of the Press that owing to the conflict between the Minister of Health, the Minister of Town and Country Planning and the Minister of Agriculture it was impossible for local authorities to get ahead. The facts are completely otherwise. Every site has been agreed, acquired and


laid out, and the houses have been designed, and contracts have been placed for 100,000 more houses than the building industry can build. In other words—and this is a legitimate point of criticism—by the end of 1946, the housing programme was was out of phase, out of balance. I accept that at once. I accept that by the end of 1946 we had placed more contracts at the disposal of the building industry than the physical resources of the industry could manage. I accept that, but if hon. Members opposite launch it at me, they entirely deny all they have said about local authorities as building instruments They cannot have it both ways. They cannot argue that local authorities are too lethargic and muscle-bound, if at the same time they have let more contracts than the building industry could manage. I accept it as an inevitable concomitant of the planning of building over a wide field. If by the end of 1946 we had cut down further housing contracts, 164 local authorities would have been denied any housing at all. The year 1946 had been devoted to an even spread of building all over the country.
The result is, and I must state it because it is a remarkable tribute to what the local authorities have done, that at the end of May only those local authorities which represented 0.2 per cent. of the population had no housing contracts. In other words, 99.8 per cent of the country had been covered by housing contracts. That is a very remarkable achievement. Why should hon. Members opposite deny it, because local authorities are of varied complexions? In the rural areas they are often composed of Conservative majorities. So anxious were the local authorities to get ahead with the job, that they put all these contracts in being very quickly.
I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he replies, if he argues that the four-to-one ratio was wrong, whether he will tell us who is going to build houses for the agricultural workers? The right hon. Gentleman made a speech in the country the other day, in which he said that the Conservatives had a plan—a plan mind you, although I have not even seen a scrap of paper about it, and I have searched all the pigeon-holes in the Ministry of Health—for 100,000 houses for the countryside. Where is it? If the right hon. Gentleman plans to build

houses for the agricultural workers does he plan to sell them houses? In between the wars, we have been told, a vast number of houses were built in rural areas by Conservative Governments. Of course there were—but it was a case of Suburbia in the rural areas. The houses were not built for the agricultural workers. It was, therefore, one of the main objectives of the present Government's housing programme to have an even spread of building all over the country in order to use building labour where it lay. As the housing need was universal we have to build houses all over the country.
I apologise for keeping the Committee so long, but we have not had a Debate for some time. It was necessary for us in 1947 to do what was manifestly impossible in 1946—to bring about a proper balance between the number of houses in tender and the number under construction, in relation to the number completed. It was because of the necessity to do that that I had to produce a housing programme. If we are to ration—which is what it means—local authorities in 1947 as to the number of houses they are to be permitted to build it is necessary to have a national global figure. So, the 240,000 permanent houses estimated at the end of 1946 to be within the physical possibilities of the building industry in 1947, was not so much a housing target as an instrument for bringing about a balanced programme. The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) grins, but that is explained in the White Paper, which he probably has not read. If we go to a zonal conference, and say to the local authorities and builders represented there, "You will be allowed to construct so many more additional houses," they ask, "On what do you base your figure?" We say, "We have based it on the national global figure of 240,000 houses, broken down for your area, in relation to your physical possibilities."

Mr. Quintin Hogg: A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman accused me of grinning; I was only sneering at his excuses.

Mr. Bevan: I think we can leave the matter where the hon. Member has left it, and where he has left himself. Almost immediately after the 1947 programme was announced, we ran into difficulties. We have been sneered at because we referred to the winter, but Members in all


parts of the Committee must realise that the effects of last winter on the building programme were more catastrophic than on any other form of activity. It was not merely that site work stopped; the production of basic materials, such as cement, bricks and pipes, stopped. What is much more important, and what cannot be calculated because we have not the statistics, was the diversion of a large number of building workers from the finishing stages of houses to the repair of houses damaged by floods and frost. What the result of that was I cannot tell, and no one else can tell. The overall picture of what we have done has been explained, and I do not propose to add to it now, or to what is in the monthly housing returns.
Reference has been made to the output of building labour, and I must remind the Committee that comparisons between output in 1935–36–37 and the present day are entirely unfair. They are unfair to the building industry; and to building operatives. In the first place, the houses that are being built today are much bigger and much better than the houses which were built before the war. One has only to take a motor ride out of London to see the brick boxes which were described as houses by their speculative builders. But they all count as houses, whereas the houses being built today are, superficially, one-third or one-fourth more than the area of those houses. We do this deliberately. We know that we shall not get as many houses that way, but we are building houses for a long time and we do not want to build bad houses. Further, the equipment of the modern house is much better than that in the prewar house. The young housewife who goes into a modern house is not compelled necessarily to go into the secondhand furniture market and buy expensive wardrobes, because in present-day houses we have built-in cupboards. There is much more labour and material lavished on the present-day house.
I must, nevertheless, say—because if I did not I should not be speaking the truth—that in some respects, the output of building labour is not as much as we are entitled to expect. This is no reflection on building operatives, it is merely a general reflection on human nature. It appears to be fundamental to all of us that we do not do our best work under

sustained ideological inspiration. We have to have some more material reward. Therefore, the Government have decided to amend Regulation 56AB, not, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) rightly pointed out, because it stands in the way of incentives, but because a lot of people believe that it stood in the way of incentives, and because it was instituted m order to produce a discipline over the building industry which we consider unnecessary in times of peace.
So, from now on, from last Friday, when the Order was promulgated, there are no inhibitions whatsoever, either implicit or explicit, against building with incentives or with payments by results. I devoutly hope that the negotiations which are going on between the building unions and master builders on this question will result in the early adoption of piece rates in the building industry. We are asking the miners to make a very special effort, at the moment, to provide more coal. The miners at the coal face work on piece rates. It is not generally understood that the graph of accidents in the mining industry is entirely different from that of any other industry. In every other industry—I use this as an illustration—the accidents are higher at the end of the day than at the beginning, when a man is fresh. In the mining industry, according to the statistics, the graph of accidents is higher in the middle of the day, because in mining, output can be kept up only by not taking the same safety precautions. To produce more coal by payment on results in the mining industry, therefore, involves a greater risk.
We have asked the miners to do it, and the miners will do it; they are doing it. It is not too much, surely, to ask the building workers who are building the homes of the people to do this in the building industry as in the mining industry. It ought not to be too much to ask the building workers to do this in building houses in the rural areas, because if we are going to break this clamp of dependency on other nations it can only be done by stepping up agricultural production, and that can only be done by building more houses in the rural areas. We are, therefore, entitled to expect the building industry to establish a new tempo of production by accepting incentives.
I am told that we have not the materials. That is really no answer, because every worker is a consumer of materials produced by some other worker, and if each worker goes slow, every one goes slow. We want a general increase in the tempo of all industries. We are at the present time stacking bricks on sites in this country because we are not getting enough orders into the brickyards. If the existing brick building force laid bricks at the same rate as before the war, we would be short of bricks; we would not really be short of bricks because we would take steps to increase production—nevertheless, we are having to close down in certain brickyards because they cannot get orders, and the reason why they cannot get orders is because the rate of bricklaying is not what we are entitled to expect it to be. Here we have an example where if cannot be argued that there is a shortage of building material. There will be found on sites all round London, wherever one likes to look, stacks of bricks. I am speaking the truth, and it does us no harm to look these facts fully in the face. Therefore, I say that there is no excuse whatsoever.
There is no excuse, either, for the joiners. There have been some difficulties over a few weeks about cement and timber. But the timber is now coming in, and if hon. Members opposite taunt us about building, I would like to ask them from where they would get the soft wood timber. Most of it we have had to buy in Canada and the U.S.A. with dollars; and we have bought it. We have had timber from Germany—a very large amount. I expect that hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that we could get it from Sweden if we had more coal. That is quite right, and if they had behaved themselves about the mining industry, we should have got it. That is the old, old story; nevertheless, it is the story, and we are reaping its consequences on the whole.
That is, so far as the Government is concerned, mainly the position we are taking up in regard to houses. We are not satisfied with the progress. There is no single problem from which more heart ache arises than from this lack of housing accommodation, and I resist the suggestion that has been made in some quarters that it is necessary for us to reduce our housing programme. I believe

that if we did that, we would gravely jeopardise national progress. There is nothing which creates a sense of alarm and despondency more than not to see new houses springing up all over the country. How can we expect the nation to reinvigorate itself if it throws its hands in the air and says that it cannot provide decent homes for its own people? I reject that suggestion. It is perfectly true that we have not been able to accomplish what we would have liked to accomplish; nevertheless, I say we have done a very good job. May I say that not only the Government but, in the circumstances facing us, the nation as a whole has done a very good job; so, for heaven's sake, do not let us be so depressed; we are getting on with it.
There is a great tendency for this nation to denigrate itself, and too great a tendency for people overseas to reproduce the speeches of critics in this House, as though they were condemnations of the British people—far too great a tendency. I know that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are not responsible for that; these are the courtesies of Parliamentary exchange. Nevertheless, it is necessary for us to say that we are making more progress in our housing programme than any other nation in the world, and we propose to go on doing it. The Government are seeking the co-operation of every one in all parts of the industry and in all parts of the country, because there can be no more inspiring job to which we can put our hands than the provision of homes for our own people.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This is the first occasion in this Parliament that I have spoken about housing. I had it in mind to claim the consideration usually accorded by hon. Members in this House to Members making a maiden speech, till I remembered, while the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, that one of the characteristics of a maiden speech is that it is supposed to be non-controversial. I cannot think that the Committee, or any one else, will expect me, after what we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, not to be controversial. The right hon. Gentleman said that at the present moment we were making more progress in housing than any other nation in the world. That is a statement that is widely made, not only by the right


hon. Gentleman but by all his minions. The hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) wrote an article only the other day in the "Daily Herald" in which he compared the housing record of this country with that of the United States, and, with his usual accuracy, he said that the American figures were not known. The hon. Member said that no one keeps and publishes them every month as in this country, but, from all accounts, they have reached nothing like the total of 1,200,000 which, he rightly said, would have been required in order to correspond with our figure. Unfortunately for the hon. Member for Devonport the figures are published and the figures given by the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), despite his appeal for honesty in the Committee in regard to facts, are entirely wrong. The hon. Member for North-West Hull said that the number of houses or dwellings completed in the United States was 661,900, and he compared with that 400,000 houses built by this country. But he was not comparing like with like, just like most hon. Members opposite. He was taking two years in. the case of this Government and one year in the case of the United States, because the 661,900 houses are in respect of one year, not two. As for the right hon. Gentleman's figures and statement, let me give him the most recent figures——

Mr. Bevan: Of the first year?

Mr. Hudson: We will take the last five months.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman has said that we had taken two years of accomplishment to one year in America. As he is making an exact comparison, will he give the Committee the production of houses in the first year?

Mr. Hudson: In 1946, the total number was the figure quoted by the hon. Member for North-West Hull, 661,900.

Mr. Bevan: By the end of 1946?

Mr. Hudson: In the year. I have got the document in front of me.

Mr. R. Mackay: Mr. R. Mackay rose——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Two hon. Members cannot be on their feet speaking at the same time. The right hon. Gentleman has not given

way and the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay) must resume his seat.

Mr. Hudson: I anticipated that this would come in useful, because I had intended to refer to the claim made by the right hon. Gentleman. I did not know he was going to repeat it today. I asked the American Embassy to let me have the latest figures, and now I am quoting from the official report provided by the United States Embassy in London. These figures are available to anyone who likes to ask for them. Here is an official statement about the United States housing programme.
Last year——
that is 1946—
661,900 non-farm houses were completed In the year——

Mr. Alpass: It is from the end of the year that we want.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman for North-West Hull was comparing two years with America's one year and I am comparing one year with their one year. At all events, I will come to a figure which I hope will be acceptable as non-controversial and it deals specifically with the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. R. Mackay: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me?

Mr. Hudson: No. The hon. Member took 40 minutes in which to make his explanation.

The Deputy-Chairman: These controversial issues and constant interruptions are only prolonging the Debate.

Mr. Mackay: On a point of Order. As the right hon. Gentleman has said I have given inaccurate figures to the Committee, he might at least allow me to correct that statement.

Mr. George Brown: He has neither the guts nor the decency.

The Deputy-Chairman: That is not a point of Order. The right hon. Gentleman should now proceed.

Mr. Hudson: I will now give a figure of direct interest to the right hon. Gentleman. He used the words, "We are now building …" There can be no question that he was referring to the present and1


not to 1945. Let us take the figures for the first five months of this year, and compare like with like. It will be found that in the first five months of this year in the United States over 300,000 houses were completed, and if we take figures for the first five months of this year it will be found——

Mr. Wyatt: On a point of Order. While the right hon. Gentleman is looking through his figures could something be done about the microphones which make it difficult to hear the figures, already very confused?

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry it my voice got mixed up with others. It is a little difficult if one is not allowed to make one's speech in one's own way. After all, the Minister of Health did not take any particular trouble not to be controversial, and we listened to him quietly with one exception. [Interruption.] I have until 10 o'clock to complete my speech.

Mr. Stubbs: We shall not be here till that time.

Mr. Hudson: I am going to compare the first five months of this year in this country and in America, which is comparing like with like. I am talking about permanent new houses. In the first five months of this year the United States finished just over 300,000 permanent new houses. In this country, taking the local authorities and private enterprise together, we finished 59,000 new permanent houses.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman knows that these figures will probably be repeated in the American Press. What the Americans describe as permanent new houses are analogous to what we in this country very often call temporary houses

Mr. Hudson: No.

Mr. Bevan: Yes. They are shacks.

Mr. Hudson: The right hon. Gentleman should really get his facts correct. He will find if he takes the trouble——

Mr. Baldwin: On a point of Order. We listened in silence to the Minister when he was making his speech. Could we have the same courtesy of silence now for this side of the Committee?

The Deputy-Chairman: It would be of great advantage if some of the heat of debate was turned off and that hon.

Members should now give to the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity to deliver his speech.

Mr. Hudson: I repeat it the right hon. Gentleman looks at the publication, he will see that I am comparing like with like. We built 59,000 permanent houses in the first five months of this year, and allowing for the difference in population that would mean that America would need do no more than some 180,000 houses. In fact, they built up to 300,000 houses, and, therefore, the claims of the right hon. Gentlemen, the hon. Member for Devonport and the hon. Member for North-West Hull are demonstrably false.
Let me turn to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He started off by saying that there had been no Debate on housing in this House for a year. That is another incidental illustration of the fact that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not know the meaning of words or the meaning of accuracy. It is true that the right hon. Gentleman was ill at the time, but there was a Debate in the House on a whole day in March.

Mr. Bevan: I said a general Debate

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): My right hon. Friend made it perfectly plain that he was referring to a general Debate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite was also absent on the occasion to which he refers, when we discussed rural housing which is in no sense general housing.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to reply when I have finished dealing with the gravamen of the charge that we levy against the right hon. Gentleman's administration. The Minister proceeded to be sarcastic at our expense over the fact that we have waited until now to have a general Debate on housing. The main reason that actuated us was that we thought that the end of July would be an appropriate occasion, because we hoped that we should then have the figures for the end of June, so that we should be able to compare the first two years after V.E. Day. I am making no complaint that the right hon. Gentleman has not published those figures yet. I know the difficulties of the Stationery Office, but the fact remains that they have not been published and, therefore, we have to deal with figures up to 31st May


only, which is a year and 11 months instead of the full two years. That is the sole reason why we have waited until now.
We have seen and heard the right hon. Gentleman and his friends going up and down the country saying that 400,000 homes provided means that he has virtually broken the back of the present problem. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] He says that the administrative task is completed and we object. He has been repeatedly using the figure of 750,000 as though the providing of 750,000 homes, let alone 750,000 houses, would have solved the major part of the problem and carried out the figures that were set as the target by the Coalition Government. The first thing I want to emphasise is that 750,000 was not the figure set as the immediate minimum needs of this country in the way of new dwellings. What the Coalition Government said was that we required 750,000 dwellings, plus another 500,000 to replace those which were overcrowded and had already been condemned. Now the right hon. Gentleman is continually using 750,000 as though that was the only target we had set ourselves. The interesting fact is that his own friend, the Minister of Town and Country Planning—whom I am sorry not to see in his place today—in the Debates in 1945, at the time of the Caretaker Government, went out of his way, like many other hon. Members opposite who were then on this side, to say that the figure of 1,250,000 was grossly inadequate. The Minister of Town and Country Planning said at that time:
… I am of opinion that instead of 1,250,000 dwellings which are immediately required"—
mark his words—"immediately required"—
the actual number is more like 2,000,000. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 1246.]
But whatever figure was the right one two years ago when the right hon. Gentleman started, has to be increased by an allowance of at least 200,000 for every year since for the houses that have become unfit for habitation. This figure of 200,000 required merely to replace unfit and obsolescent houses is based not on any calculation of mine but on the writings of no less a Labour authority than G. D. H. Cole. If anyone doubts that

the figure of over 2,000,000 is the right one it can be reached in another way. There has been no house-building for eight years. If there had been no war and house-building had continued at its prewar rate we should have had between 2,000,000 and 2,400,000 more houses than we have today, so that whichever way we look at it, the immediate shortage of houses in this country is over 2,000,000, and yet the right hon. Gentleman goes into the country saying that he has solved the administrative problem with 400,000 homes, including tin huts.

Mr. Bevan: No, no.

Hon. Members: Yes, yes.

Mr. Hudson: Included in the 400,000 are the 14,000 squatters in tin hut's and camps.

Mr. Bevan: I think the right hon. Gentleman will find from the housing returns which are published every month that the total does not include the squatters.

Mr. Hudson: The figure of 400,000 new homes provided in England and Wales up to the end of May—homes, not houses, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said in his opening speech that for most ordinary people the word "home" means something better than "house," although with the right hon. Gentleman it is the other way round—includes, besides the 90,312 permanent houses, 94,465 temporary houses, 45,000 conversions and adaptations, 119,000 repairs of war damaged houses, 26,967 requisitions, 3,480 temporary huts and 11,155 huts in service camps.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman say from what he is quoting?

Mr. Hudson: From the housing figures.

Mr. Bevan: From the May return or from the Conservative Central Office return?

Mr. Hudson: From the May return, the page headed "Total Provision of Housing Accommodation Summary." The interesting point is the next sentence,
The total number of new permanent houses, flats, temporary houses and other units of family accommodation …
The return then goes on to give new permanent houses so many, new temporary houses, so many, use of existing premises,


unoccupied houses requisitioned for residential purposes, temporary huts 3,480, Service camps 11,155.

Mr. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman quote the reference in the last paragraph?

Mr. Hudson: This summary says in paragraph (b):
The number of family units of accommodation shown are included in those quoted in a subsequent paragraph of the return dealing with temporary accommodation in Service camps. These represent the numbers of units occupied in camps that are at least up to the standard of the temporary accommodation. already included in the summary"—
which includes temporary huts and huts in Service camps.
I venture to suggest that those are not what the ordinary man, and still less his wife, would regard as home. On this question it might not be improper to quote from a speech made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. She was talking about the miserable accommodation for married couples and she said that the task was to get homes for people who considered themselves homeless, whether they were living in one room or with their mothers-in-law. They were just as unhappy as if they had no shelter at all, but many of those people had not even applied for a house. The demand might therefore be even greater than was apparent. One sentence in her speech I would commend. It was:
The time has come when we should put the feelings of the people above the feelings of the Ministers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT 23rd March, 1945; Vol. 409. c. 1202.]
How have the Government tackled the problem? I have said that our first charge is that they have grossly understated the problem and that they are endeavouring to mislead the people of this country into believing that the problem is much smaller than it actually is. How have they tackled the problem? We say that the Coalition Government would have got 220,000 new permanent houses built, 80,000 building, and 145,000 temporary houses, by now. Hon. Members opposite criticised those figures at the time as grossly insufficient. The present Minister of Town and Country Planning said that the Government plans for meeting the urgent and immediate demands were insufficient. He went on:

We are told that there will be 220,000 houses completed in the first two years alter the war and also that 145,000 temporary dwellings … will, in fact be provided. That makes 365,000 houses which we are promised will be available, against an admitted need of 1,250,000 and against the need which I put at not less than 2,000,000; 365,000 houses will not carry us very far.
Then he said:
Unless my right hon. and learned Friend"—
the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink)—
can do better than that, there will be very considerable disappointment and dissatisfaction."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th June. 1945: Vol. 411, c. 1250.]
The Minister of Health has not only failed to do better than that. He has failed to come up to that very low standard.
Why has the right hon. Gentleman failed? He failed because first, of the dissipation of effort, secondly, because of the slow rate of construction and thirdly because he is piling up excessive costs. He asked us what we would do about the production of soft wood timber. He seemed to think that he was scoring a point. The Minister without Portfolio, who was then Lord Privy Seal—I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman remembers what the Minister without Portfolio, who was then Lord Privy Seal, said, when he was standing where I am? The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Arthur Greenwood) said, on 4th June, just before the Election that the Coalition Government's housing programme
is not a problem like that of the restoring of our foreign trade where we are to some extent in the hands of our friends overseas. This is a problem on our own doorstep, which we can solve if we so choose by our own efforts.
There was no nonsense there about soft wood timber from Canada. This was a problem which we could solve if we so choose by our own efforts. The right hon. Gentleman went on:
Failure, therefore, to solve the housing problem cannot be placed at the door of unwilling allies overseas. Failure here means our failure to deal with what is a fundamental problem."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th June, 1945; Vol. 411, c. 1108.]
I commend those words to the right hon. Gentleman, when he is talking about softwood timber.
We say that if we had been in power, the total number of new permanent houses completed would have been


greater than it is today and we say that one of the reasons for the ill balance, which the right hon. Gentleman admits is affecting the building industry today, is that there is no relation between the number of houses started and the raw materials likely to be available. The right hon. Gentleman was warned against this in the White Paper of the Coalition and Caretaker Governments. His colleagues who were then in the National Government realised it. The White Paper setting out the Coalition programme—subsequently taken over by the Caretaker Government—mentioned and called attention to this point. It said:
As experience after the last war showed, a programme beyond the capacity of the building industry would have the result that many houses would be started but few would be completed. Moreover, there would be powerful pressure on prices if, in the early stages, more work were offered than the building industry could perform.
That was a very prescient warning, and it has been completely disregarded by the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman has done exactly the opposite, and the results predicted therein have necessarily followed.
It is obvious, and it should have been obvious to the right hon. Gentleman at an early stage, that bottlenecks were bound to arise. I will not go into the details, because they would be out of Order. Nevertheless, local authorities were encouraged to go all out in starting housing and letting contracts. Then the fuel crisis overcame us. Let us admit the difficulties that were caused by it; but even since then, at a time when he knows that he has not overtaken the arrears of production of raw materials that were caused by that fuel crisis, the Minister is still encouraging local authorities to go ahead. He said this year—I can only go by the figures that show a result of his prophecy—that he was going to have a return to a proper balance. If he will look at the figures for April and May, 1947, he will find that in spite of his desire to get a proper balance, twice as many new houses were started in those two months as were finished and that far from the discrepancy between the number of houses started and finished being decreased it is increasing with every month that passes.
It is sheer nonsense, in the face of figures like that, for the Minister to get

up and talk about the restoration of the balance of the industry. I say that as a result of the ill balance and of his administrative incompetence the people of this country have at least 60,000 new permanent houses fewer than would have been the case if we had been in power. [Laughter.] I am making that statement. The right hon. Gentleman went on during his speech to emphasise his belief in the four-to-one ratio. We believe that the four-to-one ratio is bad, for two reasons. First of all, we believe that it does not encourage the use of the best instruments we can get, secondly, that the local authorities build a permanent house which takes longer and is more costly than under private enterprise. I do not want to weary the Committee with a great many figures, but at the present moment local authority houses are taking from 13 to 14 months to build compared with nine months in the case of private enterprise.
One of the results of that is steadily mounting costs. The costs have been given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford. Let me remind the Committee that private enterprise builders are limited to £1,300 per house, which has to include everything, including the allowance for their overhead expenses, but local authority tenders are running at £1,400 to £1,600, and they include nothing for the overhead costs of the Ministry or the local authorities. As far as the cost of building of houses goes, the local authority—the chosen instrument—is running away above private enterprise.
I would take an example selected by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works when he was Parliamentary Secretary last year. He was boasting about what he called his chosen instrument. As an example of how well it works, he quoted the case of the two counties, Durham and Hertford. He said that in the old days in 1938, 7,000 houses were built in Durham but the need of Durham was greater than that of Hertford. He boasted a year ago that 8,000 tenders and licences to build had been issued to Durham and only 4,000 to Hertford, and he asked the Committee to assume what a first class chap he was and how good his chosen instrument was. It is interesting to see what has happened under this chosen instrument 12 months later

Mr. Bevan: Is this including factories in county Durham?

Mr. Hudson: I am speaking of the county and county borough and I am talking of permanent houses, not temporary houses because they have been largely erected by the Ministry of Works. A fair comparison is between permanent houses erected by local authorities—the chosen instrument—and private enterprise. As far as private enterprise is concerned in Durham, in June, 1946, 846 licences were issued and by May, 1947, 450 houses had been completed. In the case of local authorities, 5,866 tenders had been approved and accepted but the number completed was only 1,408. Private enterprise completed more than half the houses licensed in June a year ago, whereas local authorities completed less than a quarter. That is by private enterprise, subject to all sorts of delays and frustrations in county Durham. The Minister said that the local authorities were the chosen instrument. I am showing that the chosen instrument has let him down. Let us look at Hertford. There the number licensed to private enterprise was 1,478 and a year later 918 were completed. A good deal more than half were completed by private enterprise. In the case of local authorities, curiously enough the figure was 1,478 tenders approved but only 685 were completed. In Hertford and Durham the chosen instrument let the right hon. Gentleman down badly. There is a further point about this illustration to which I would call attention. It illustrates—I am sorry that the hon. Member for North-West Hull has gone away—the real importance of honesty in using facts and figures.

Mr. Bevan: Hear, hear.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): The right hon. Gentleman has just quoted me. He has just told the Committee that it is very important to be honest in quotations. Will he tell me if the quotation he gave is from a speech I made in the time of the Coalition Government about the Conservative Minister of Health?

Mr. Hudson: It was made on 23rd March, 1945. [interruption.]

Dr. Summerskill: I must draw attention to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was so dishonest—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order. I heard the hon. Lady say these words, "The right hon. Gentleman was so dishonest." [An HON. MEMBER: "So he was."] Is the hon. Lady entitled to say that? May we not have the protection of the Chair?

The Deputy-Chairman: I rather thought the temper of the Committee was rising. I think it is unfortunate that the word was used.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman made a statement which could have had no significance at all if he had given the 1945 date. I say that the withholding of the date entitled my hon. Friend to make the statement she did.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Beaumont. I daresay the temper of the Committee is rising, but the hon. Lady used these words, "The right hon. Gentleman was so dishonest," and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health has sought to justify that. May I ask for your definite ruling?

The Deputy-Chairman: I said that I thought it was unfortunate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] It is against the rules of the House that any imputation of dishonesty should be made against any hon. Member. I do not want to place an interpretation on the word used, but I would express the hope that no personal dishonesty was inferred. I trust the hon. Lady will withdraw the word.

Dr. Summerskill: If you ask me to withdraw the word, Mr. Beaumont, of course I shall do so. May I finish my sentence and say that the right hon. Gentleman was so inaccurate as to imply that I was criticising my right hon. Friend whereas I was in fact criticising a Conservative Minister of Health in the Coalition Government.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Mr. R. S. Hudson rose——

Mr. Shurmer: Now you withdraw.

Mr. Hudson: I was quoting——

Mr. Shurmer: The right hon. Gentleman knows what that means in the Press tomorrow morning. He stated it deliberately.

Mr. Hudson: I was quoting from a Debate which took place in March, 1945.


[HON. MEMBERS: "You did not say so."] I quoted two, if not three, extracts from the speech of the present Minister of Town and Country Planning in that Debate and I went on to quote from the hon. Lady.

Mr. Bowles: The right hon. Gentleman made references to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary some time after the references to the Minister of Town and Country Planning.

Mr. Hudson: I am very sorry It would have been quite clear if I had said column 1202, 23rd March, 1945.

Mr. Shurmer: If you had.

Mr. Hudson: The point I was trying to make was how a first-class remark made then, was applicable to today.

Dr. Summerskill: Not at all.

Mr. Hudson: The words the hon. Lady used in March, 1945, referred to the feelings of the people of the country, and that applies today.
Now we come to the question of the housing figures given by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Town and Country Planning. He said that 7,000 houses were built in 1938. He went on to say that today 8,000 tenders for licences had been issued to the county councils. We shall see what happens with this chosen instrument. His words were exactly accurate, but I suggest that anyone hearing or reading them quickly would not have realised the essential difference—he was not comparing like with like; he was comparing completed permanent houses before the war with licences and tenders issued for permanent houses—local authority, private enterprise and temporary houses.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Key): if the right hon. Gentleman will excuse me, I think he has missed the point completely. The illustration that was being made there was that as between county Durham and Hertford, the number of houses completed in the first period bore a different relationship to the number of houses sanctioned under the present arrangement for the Durham County Council and the Hertfordshire County Council, and the point was that as a result of this, greater activities were taking place in the area of greater need.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, but the point is that the right hon. Gentleman was comparing 7,000 permanent houses actually built and completed in the current year with 8,000 licences issued not for permanent houses, but for permanent houses plus temporary houses——

Mr. Key: The right hon. Gentleman will excuse me again, but the comparison was not that at all. The comparison was between completed houses in the given period at Durham and Hertford, and between the tendered houses in Durham and Hertford in the later period and not between the two figures of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Hudson: The fact is that the hon. Gentleman was comparing tenders with houses built. The right hon. Gentleman had 1,408 houses only built in Durham by his local authorities.
The third count in our charge against the right hon. Gentleman is one to which he has alluded himself at the end of his speech. He has, owing to his maladministration, caused the industry to be grossly over-manned in relation to the raw materials likely to be available. There is no question at all, as the right hon. Gentleman himself said, that if the men today were working at full capacity and full output, a substantial number would be unemployed——

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Hudson: I am sorry, but this is the implication—there would be a shortage of bricks——

Mr. Bevan: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misunderstand or to misinterpret this, because it has a very real bearing on negotiations going on between the building operatives and master builders. Therefore I am sure he would not wish to give a false impression. What I said was that if the rate of production of houses, or the rate of progress by building operatives, was the same today as in 1937–38, they would soon build themselves out of bricks. Then I immediately went on to say that we would not permit that to happen, because we would immediately go on to increase the production of bricks, which we cannot do now because we cannot stack them.

Mr. Hudson: That applies only to bricks.

Mr. Bevan: I said that was in connection with bricks.

Mr. Hudson: Equally it applies to carpenters because we have no timber. What is beyond dispute is that at the moment the output of the building industry is substantially—although it has the same number of men as prewar—below prewar, and that if the output of the men engaged in the industry was at prewar level, having regard to existing bottlenecks and shortages of raw material, particularly timber, large numbers of men would be unemployed. That is proved by the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works' own Under-Secretary, speaking in the House only a short while ago when he said—I have his exact word here. [An HON. MEMBER: "When?"] The 18th June this year:
The second obligation is to ensure that the necessary raw materials are there, because it would be of no use either to the workers in the building industry, or to those who need houses or other forms of building, or to the country at large, if a method of increasing efficiency were adopted and the raw materials were not there.
The only consequence of that would be that men would be working themselves out of a job. Then he said:
So the responsibility rests plainly and squarely with the Government to see that the raw materials are in ample supply."—[OFFICIAIL REPORT, 18th June, 1947; Vol. 438, C. 2202.]
We say that the Government have failed in that responsibility because the raw materials have not been in ample supply. I would ask hon. Members to cast their minds back, if they want to look at the situation in which we find ourselves today, to the situation two years ago when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends were returned as the Government of this country amid the cheers and rejoicings of a majority of the people of this country, filled with relief at the end of the war, filled with hope that this new Government would build—I emphasise the word "build"—a new England. They thought houses would be built, houses that people would be proud of, and that the work was regarded as so essential that, in the words of the Minister of Works, it was to be regarded as a war operation. The words of the right hon. Gentleman in his election address were that we were to build houses as we built Spitfires during the war. Above all, the country was told, "We have a plan"

—[An HON. MEMBER: "So we have."] When you speak of a plan, the ordinary man in the street means that you know what you want, that you have investigated how it can be done, that you have estimated what materials and labour and directions will be needed.

Mr. Key: Mr. Key indicated assent.

Mr. Hudson: I see I carry the Committee with me. Today we are discussing two years' results. There are not only no houses, there certainly is not a plan. Two years ago the right hon. Gentleman and his friends blamed the Tories—[An HON. MEMBER: "Another headline."]—for the lack of houses, for the manpower shortage and everything else. Today the Government have been in power for two years with the biggest majority and has had complete power. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) said two years ago that this was a task any Government of this country could perform if it so choose. There has been an ingenious attempt today by the right hon. Gentleman to shuffle off his responsibilities. He tickled the ears of some of his supporters with his rhetoric but, believe me, the people of this country want houses and not, to use his own words, empty rhetoric.
If I may sum up, our charges in this Debate are these: First, the right hon. Gentleman and his friends are trying to pull wool over the eyes of the public by understating the size of the real problem and by consequently claiming virtually to have made some substantial progress in meeting it. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is true."] Secondly, building of permanent houses has fallen well behind the target that we believed possible in Coalition and caretaker governments. Third, by faulty planning and administration he has dissipated rather than concentrated the raw materials and the efforts of the building industry, and has thereby unnecessarily reduced the number of houses that would otherwise have been built today. Incidentally, he has also enormously increased their cost. Fourthly, owing to his wilful pigheadedness and doctrinaire prejudice, he has failed to make use of the instruments which lie ready to his hand and he has destroyed, or considerably reduced, the efficiency of the industry. Employers are frustrated, merchants have no incentive to efficiency, and


the men's output is well below what it was prewar.
The result is that the industry has become seriously overmanned today in relation to raw materials available at a time when, in other spheres, priceless work and production required by the nation is not being obtained, owing to shortages of manpower, and the right hon. Gentleman and his administration are responsible for that. His is the chief responsibility for housing. I do not believe I am doing him an injustice, and he would not deny it. He is head of the co-ordinating committee of Ministers. Some of us knew him during the war when he used to sit here—he has not changed very much. Those of us who knew him in the House during the war will remember the occasions on which he did his best to sabotage our war effort.

Mr. Bevan: Mr. Beaumont, that is an extremely serious charge. If it were true, the Privilege of the House of Commons would not have protected me during the war. The right hon Gentleman is reading out what he says; it is not a thing said in heated debate, but a prepared, malicious, statement for the "Daily Express" headlines tomorrow—I ask him to withdraw.

Hon. Members: Withdraw

Dr. Morgan: Many of us were in the House and heard it.

Mr. George Brown: The most disgraceful speech I have heard.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I will refer to one incident alone——

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: On sabotage?

Mr. Hudson: Yes. Many hon. and gallant Members on the other side of the Committee were engaged in fighting for the country, they were fighting the enemy.

Mr. George Wallace: On a point of Order. As one who served in the Forces, and followed proceedings in this House, I would like to draw your attention Mr. Beaumont, to the fact that the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) is about to make a charge which is tantamount to that of treason.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: I am merely going to read out a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman during the war.

Mr. Bevan: I really must ask your protection, Mr. Beaumont—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is customary when a Member is going to make statements of this sort, so wide of the mark, to give notice about what he is going to say. Then we can discuss the matter in the context in which it was said. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman is going to say at the present time, but I suggest that it is utterly irrelevant to what we are discussing, and shows the depths of infamy to which the Opposition have sunk.

The Deputy-Chairman: It is my Ruling that the word is entirely out of Order, and must be withdrawn. It is a grave charge and imputes motives of the basest character. No matter what the right hon. Gentleman said during the war, it is not in Order on this Vote. I cannot allow any quotation to be made in defence of the charge. I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) will withdraw the word.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: If you definitely make that Ruling, naturally I withdraw. But it has always been the rule in this House to allow a Member to quote from other Member's speeches.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, but if the right hon. Gentleman had read the quotation first, and then put his interpretation upon it, then it could have been dealt with. But I cannot allow him now to read the quotation or to substantiate the word.

Mr. Hudson: I am quite prepared to leave it. Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's actions during the war, which you object to my qualifying, may have been, I do say that by his maladministration and by the methods that he has adopted—and I hope that you will not rule this out of Order—he will go down to history definitely as having ruined our housing effort during these last two years.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. George Hicks: I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity of saying a few words in this Debate. I can assure my right hon.


Friend the Minister of Health that he has the backing of this side of the Committee, including myself, for all the things he is doing. When I was listening to the Debate earlier this afternoon, I was reminded of the old lady who looked at her old man and said, "Isn't nature wonderful?" I thought how wonderful is the English language to allow such propositions as we have heard in regard to a situation in which the emotions of the men and women of this country are bound up. They ought to be appeased, and not aggravated. There is no proposition which should demand more respect and attention in this country than the provision of homes. It is the greatest need, and why it has become the subject of political controversy and twisting of Debate—I do not know whether I am in Order in using that term, but perhaps some one will provide me with another word if that is not the right one—to make it appear something totally different from what it is, I do not know.
Every party has interested itself in housing, and has done its best to stimulate housing. I remember many of the efforts that have been made. It is over 50 years since I joined a housing association as the representative of a trade union, when the late Dr. Macnamara was Member for Camberwell. He became Minister of Labour later, and unfortunately, has now gone on. He was our chairman, and we were discussing then the question of houses, and we have been doing so ever since. I am very pleased to know that it has interested all parties, but the inadequacy of the results, as revealed by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George), is only too patent to anyone who looks around. We are short of the number of houses to which the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) referred. We are more short than that; there is no doubt about it. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is not pleased; he is not satisfied. At present he is only accepting the situation as far as it has gone, and doing the best he can.
What is the use of talking about the number of houses he would have built if there had been a different Government? If the labour and materials are not there, is there any common sense in trying to say that more houses would have been built? If there is any common sense in it whatever, I am unable to appreciate

it. I am unable to understand how, under a Conservative administration, more would have been built. The total building trade labour, employers' organisations, and private enterprise in civil engineering and in sewerage and other preparations for building have been available, and local authorities have invited them to build. Few local authority houses have been built by direct labour. The right hon. Gentleman said that private enterprise would have got on with the job better and quicker. We know that where the private contractor has had a local authority contract for houses and has had a private contract of his own, he has starved the local authority contract in order to put labour on his own, and his own houses, built for sale, have been put up much more quickly than they would have been had labour been properly distributed. We know why. What is the use of trying to conceal such a thing? Everyone knows, or should know, about it.
I do not intend to deal with figures, as did my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), in reply to the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith), because I do not believe in repetition. If I had my way I would recast a lot of the speeches made in this House in order to get the result much quicker than is done by talking to the newspapers. I do not repeat things that have been said time after time already, but I would commend my hon. Friend for the excellent analysis he gave and for the very proper speech he made. There is a lamentable lack of houses everywhere. Target fixing may be a good thing, but I advise the Minister of Health that if he has a target he should make it low enough. Do not let him fix it so high that it is something to be aimed at, because if he fails there will be criticism, regardless of the good effort which may have been made. If there is to be a target, let it be a low one.
Criticism ought not to be resented, and I do not believe it is, if the problem is fairly stated and the analysis is truthful. Let us have the problem fairly stated and the analysis truthfully made. Do not let us try to play on the uninstructed emotions of millions of people in an attempt to make them believe that many things would have been different if there had been a change of course at a particular Election. I would like to compliment


the Government on being so wise as to make local authorities responsible for the allocation of houses. I heard the Minister of Health challenged from the other side of the Committee, and he asked, "Who would you ask to allocate the housing in a locality if you did not ask the local authority? Would you ask the master builders, or some other organisation in the locality?" There was no answer forthcoming to that question. One of the greatest things that has been done has been to stimulate the interest of the local authority in housing by giving them this task to do. This Government have done nothing greater. Instead of being criticised for giving this task to local authorities, they should be complimented.
I wish to say something about temporary houses, to which reference has been made. They were designed by the Coalition Government, and I had some part in designing them. They were very good temporary houses—and we only intended them to be temporary. We never visualised that they would be permanent. That has been said many times, but apparently one has to keep on saying it. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull say that there were about 40 different types of temporary houses. The country went wrong, and made a sad mistake, when it departed from one type of temporary house. In my view, we should have kept to one type only. As the Minister of Health has quite rightly said, no sooner was the departure from one type made—I am referring to the Portal type, which made minimum demands on building trade labour and materials in its manufacture and erection—then we went off the rails so far as temporary houses were concerned. Building trade labour and materials began to be used in every one of the others, the result being that the more traditional, permanent type of house was neglected because of our going off the rails and embarking on these other types of temporary houses. Temporary houses came in for much criticism and many jokes. I ask hon. Members, as they go about today, and see those houses erected and occupied in different parts of the country, to ask themselves "Where would the people be if they had not had those houses?" The very fact of having those temporary houses guarantees

shelter and, furthermore, a standard of living accommodation which has never previously been equalled.
Lord Portal, and the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Johnston, and I discussed many times this question of providing fitments for the temporary houses—fitments for the kitchen, wardrobes for the bedroom, and, in the sitting rooms, cupboards and all those things which ordinarily, as the Minister of Health has said, would have to be purchased by the tenant because they would not have been provided by the landlord. A good standard was set, and it has been carried forward in some degree in the permanent houses today, which have many fittings that were not provided in the old days. For many years it has been said that, on the average, the production of houses was at the rate of one per year per building trade worker. I have used that argument myself many times in the House, namely, that 100,000 building workers should be able to build 100,000 houses per year, that is, by a proper balance of labour and materials. But let us not forget that the area standard of housing accommodation is much higher today than the standard we had previously. From 700 and sometimes 750 superficial feet per house it has now reached 900 feet and is often 1,000 superficial feet or more. That often means that 20 or 25 per cent. more has to be put into the house than in the old days. At some time there must be a revision of the time taken to erect a house, so that we can find out what is the average time it should take a building trade worker to build a house.
Many Members are interested in the problem of production. I am one of those who believe that the discussion which is now going on about incentives is a good thing, and I hope that something will materialise. I much prefer the incentive of additional payment to the incentive of unemployment and the sack, and I trust that something tangible can be agreed upon between the negotiators on behalf of the operatives and the employers. I compliment the Minister of Labour on the helpful interventions he has made from time to time in this matter in assisting to bring about a solution of the difficulties between the two sides—very useful and very proper intervention indeed. It should be borne in mind, in relation to this question of production, that in the building of houses, brickwork accounts for


less than 20 per cent. There is 80 per cent. of other kind of work and material in a house. Thus, if all the bricklayers engaged on a building work together, less than 20 per cent. has been contributed towards the completion of the house when they have finished. That seems to be conveniently forgotten, and it is the poor old bricklayer who is charged with being responsible for not laying bricks faster, and thus getting houses completed more speedily.
My right hon. Friend said that building trade workers as a whole ought not to be condemned but complimented on the work they have done. I think that is right. It would not be true to say that they are entirely free from blame. Of course, some are to be blamed. I wonder how many hon. Members, when they go to their constituents at the next General Election, might be told that they are to blame for some deficiency here and there. When we speak of the one million men in the building industry, there are bound to be some who are not pulling their weight in such a large number. Let it not be forgotten that they have been the victims of inclement weather. A full week is not the normal; it is the exception. Many of the men have not worked more than half a dozen full weeks in the year. In the other weeks they have had to stop for frost, rain or other types of bad weather, for lack of material or transport. Therefore, the question of guaranteeing them a livelihood ought to be considered. If there are plenty of bricks, I hope that sufficient transport can be made available to enable supply to be made in the proper areas. I do not subscribe to the point of view expressed by the chairman of the Federation of British Industries. I cannot pronounce his name, but I hope the Government will not be influenced unduly by his point of view.
The Government have appointed a committee to inquire into rising costs and distribution. When I was at the Ministry of Works, and materials were in short supply, I called in the manufacturers and secured the maximum amount of co-operation. We were short of slates, asbestos, glass and plaster board and we had special meetings to decide how to deal with the problem. Whenever the master builders and civil engineering contractors were asked to put their backs into it, they did their very best. Of course, in their case we must remember there was an incentive

to get results. Hon. Members should not forget that at one time there were nearly 200,000 building trade employers. I heard one of my hon. Friends say there were 100,000. At a building trade conference last week it was said that there were nearly 200,000 registered building trade employers. That is far too many. When I was at the Ministry and we introduced Regulation 56AB, we reduced the number of building employers. In my opinion, the number should have been kept down instead of being allowed to expand. Hundreds of thousands are engaged in the building industry as employers when they have neither plant nor material to enable them to carry on the work. They may have an idea how to do it, but they have not the material.
In regard to the question of direct labour, as a member of the Labour Party I have stood for that as a principle, but I think that in the case of housing it is hopelessly out of date to start a direct labour scheme. We must have contractors with sufficient plant, bulldozers and things of that kind, to clear the site in order to make an economical approach to the problem of house building. We should not be in the position of having to wait until such time as an organisation has built up its plant before it can start work. We hear a lot said about the lack of cement. It is said that we cannot get on for lack of cement. When I was a young man in the building industry, housing was never held up for that reason. We had plenty of lime mortar. It is much better, quicker and cheaper to use lime mortar than to use cement and sand. Cement and sand are hard to work, particularly if the sand is "short" in texture It is then very heavy to work. We always had plenty of lime, but the great cement rings did their best to close down the lime works in this country to prevent competition.
I ask the Government to inquire into the situation. There could not be any better material for quality and cheapness for use in building. Lime mortar is much quicker and easier to use, and a craftsman would not work half as hard in order to do 10 per cent. more work than he does when using sand and cement. Anyone with knowledge of building knows the difficulty in hot weather when using sand and cement, but the difficulties are not so great when lime mortar is employed. I ask the Government to consider that suggestion. Also I ask them to encourage large-scale


organisation and the supply of material equipment in order to equip the houses properly.
I do not know what is the position in regard to baths. When I was first at the Ministry, we used half a million baths a year. That figure included those which we imported. When I left the Ministry, fewer than 40,000 baths a year were manufactured in this country, and none were being imported. The Government had to make up the leeway between 40,000 and 500,000. I do not know what they have done I wish them well in their work. I believe that the building industry is getting a keener, and better understanding of this great work with a nearer approach to the Ministry. Not only do we want builders for housing. The Minister has plenty of other things to occupy his mind in regard to his requirements for our great social services. In addition, we want plenty of factories. Those that have been put off commission must be rebuilt We ought not to think in terms of the whole of our building trade labour being employed upon housing. In the old days, if ever more than 40 per cent. were engaged upon housing, it was considered to be improper. Sixty per cent. were required for commercial and other work. I compliment the Ministry on the proportion of men engaged in housing building. I wish the Ministry would exercise a little more severity in the case of the employer who "pinches" men from house-building with local authorities, in order to build for himself to realise money quickly. I hope the Government will take all the necessary steps to carry on with this urgent work of providing the necessary homes for our people.

7.40 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I hope the hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. G. Hicks) will forgive me if I do not follow him exactly in the remarks he made, but I want to take the opportunity of talking about rural housing. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that agriculture can be our greatest dollar-saver. There are two ways of looking at housing First, we can look at it from the point of view of the individual, and try to provide a home for him; and secondly, we may look at it from the point of view of industry, and try to use housing as a spur to put people into the right

places and in the right jobs. I think that special priority is being considered for various coalmining areas, and I know that it is the case in the constituency which I represent, but I regret to say that, so far as I can see, no special priority or consideration has really been given to the needs of agriculture.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Buchanan): I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the same priority as is given for coalmining areas is extended to agricultural areas.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman will give me time to explain, he will see why that is not the case. First, I should like to make it clear that there is a very urgent need for more houses for farm workers, and, in my opinion, the Government are not setting about their production in the right way. Everybody knows that, during the war, we employed vast numbers of prisoners of war. I would not like to say just how many more permanent employees we need in the agricultural industry, but it has been set at something like 100,000 when we lose the prisoners. In my opinion, agricultural production is capable of considerable expansion, even on the wartime peak. There are three farms in my village whose production during the war was expanded very considerably. In prewar days, they employed three or four men, and now employ from 15 to 20, 50 per cent. of whom are prisoners. I was talking to one farmer who told me that he was going to give up. He is a very good farmer, and so I told him not to talk nonsense, but he said. "I simply cannot face the labour problem." When I asked him why he did not build houses and get Englishmen into them, he said, "I simply cannot afford to do it, because the scales are so much weighted against me, and it is not worth my while." I think the Committee will agree that generally that is the case.
I must say to the Government that their subsidy to local authorities for rural housing is absolutely adequate. I cannot gainsay that, but the Government provide a poor subsidy for the private person, and only then on condition that he does not have control of the tenancy of the accommodation which he may build. The same farmer told me that he could not build cottages unless he could control the tenancies. That is the situation. The


Government have weighted the scales against the private person so much, that it really does not pay him to compete with the local authority in the provision of houses. I do not think the Government take full account of the situation as it really exists in the rural areas. I do not think the local authorities have ever provided sufficient houses in rural areas. The farmers and landowners, from year to year, have had to provide the housing accommodation or go without the men they needed, and it is most unreasonable to turn against them now and make it impossible for them to continue with the provision of houses where they are necessary, particularly if the local authorities do not do the work themselves. The local authorities are not providing the houses on anything like the scale, or with anything like the urgency, which is absolutely necessary if agricultural production is not to decline considerably.
In my part of the country, practically 50 per cent. of agricultural workers live in tied cottages. They pay no rent, or only a nominal rent of about 3s. a week. When the local council builds houses, they do not get agricultural workers to occupy them, and for two reasons. First, the agricultural workers cannot afford to pay the rent; secondly, when an agricultural worker changes his job, he very often changes his parish, and there never happens to be a house available when a farmer employs a new man. These are problems which the Government ought to face, and I think they should instruct local authorities to make some special effort to let houses to agricultural workers, and also to inform farmers, when houses are going to be completed in their districts, so that they can make some sort of claim to that accommodation. That may sound unreasonable, but I think it is better than the ordinary housing list at present in use, because the houses are not going to agricultural workers. I think that only two new cottages have been let to agricultural workers in South Shropshire.

Mr. Alpass: Is not that entirely within the discretion of the local housing authority? Are there not a large number of these farmers on the councils in those districts? Should not they know the needs?

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: That is, to some extent, true, but it does not cover the other objections I have raised—first, that

the agricultural worker has to pay the full rent, while the majority of his fellow workers are living either rent free or very cheaply, and, secondly, that when he changes his employment, there never happens to be a house available in the district to which he goes.
The Minister of Health twitted the Party on this side for wishing to give priority to private enterprise to build houses in rural districts in order to let them to farm workers, and I would like him to quote one instance of a landowner offering to build houses to sell. When the Minister of Health makes such statements as he has done, he shows his ignorance of the whole subject. In my opinion, there never has been, in spite of what the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said, any real effort between the Ministries of Health and Agriculture to ascertain the needs of particular districts in the housing of agricultural workers. I have asked my own rural district council how they know where to build their cottages, and the answer invariably has been that they build the cottages in what are at present the largest centres of population—the biggest villages. It is, I know, an accepted principle that we should now try to form village communities, and if that is so, there may be some justification for building houses in the larger villages, but it does not always follow that those villages are the ones where more farm workers should live, and for that reason I think that greater effort should have been made, through the county agricultural committees, to co-ordinate plans with local authorities so that houses would be located where they are required to serve the industry.
Another point I would like to stress concerns the slowness of the local authorities in carrying out their work as housing agents. I think they are too much subjected to restrictions. When they decide to build cottages, they have to consult almost every kind of Government Department about the site. Surely, that could be done within the county, and the local authority should be allowed to decide where these cottages are to be built? I have heard of cases where plans have been submitted and have been sent up to the Ministry of Health, and have then been sent back, and where all the "to-ing" and "fro-ing" has caused very considerable delay, and where, in the end, as often as not, the cottage has been


built on the site originally selected. In one case concerning the Ludlow Rural District Council, plans were submitted for the building of cottages, and after the usual consultations were submitted to the housing authorities, who sent back a letter asking why they could not be built on another site. The answer was that the suggested alternative site had been built on 30 years before. The housing authorities should bring their maps up to date. It is absurd that there should be these long delays when the people on the spot are capable of planning their own villages, and I strongly recommend that they be allowed to do it.
I further strongly recommend that they be allowed to accept tenders. I heard of a case the other day where tenders for the building of houses had been accepted by a rural district council, who were told by the housing authorities that they were too high. After a lot of correspondence, the plans were re-submitted to tender, and the only result was that in the end, a tender from the same people had to be accepted, but at a higher price than the one they had originally put forward. I also ask the Minister to allow more houses to be built by people who are dependent on the production of cottages for their farm workers, and who do not happen to be situated close to villages being developed by rural district councils; in other words, to allow more tied cottages to be built, where necessary. I know that hon. Members opposite are prejudiced against tied cottages.

Mr. Alpass: Not merely prejudiced.

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: I own a farm and employ a large number of men. They mostly live in tied cottages and pay very little rent. Fortunately, I have not had to evict anybody. We are a very happy party, and I know of very few cases of eviction. Hon. Members must know that the cure for evictions is for local authorities to provide sufficient houses and alternative accommodation; the cure is not to put every obstacle in the way of farmers and landowners looking after their tenants and workers. For years past, if farmers and landowners had not provided houses for their workers, there would have been none for them. It is no use turning on the landowners now and trying to abolish a principle

which they have been forced to accept. The answer is to stimulate rural district councils to build more houses so that, if a man does not wish to live in a tied cottage, he can live in a house provided by the council. At the moment, that is not being done.

Mr. Alpass: Why not?

Lieut.-Colonel Corbett: Because they have not tackled the matter in a proper way; men will not go to live in those houses because of the high rents. There is one other point I would like to mention before I leave the topic of providing houses for agricultural workers. It would appear that, for some little time to come, we are going to be dependent on the services of foreigners—the Poles and, possibly, displaced persons. I will deal only with the Poles, but what I have to say about them applies equally to the displaced persons. The Poles are asked to join the Resettlement Corps and to become civilians, which they do, when farmers give them employment. Once they become civilians, they go to work on the land. At present, they have to go on living in their camps, and they do not like it. We want to give them some hope that they will eventually have homes of their own. Personally. I cannot see anybody being in a position to offer them a home of their own for a very long time to come. We need so many farm cottages for our own men, and for the men whom we must attract into the industry, that it will be a considerable time before any Pole gets a chance of having a house.
Therefore, as a first step, I ask that a scheme should be put in hand so that the huts in their camps can be converted into self-contained units. There are various reasons for doing that. One of the most important is that they should learn to live the English way—to buy their own rations and to feed themselves. They want to do that. They are entitled to extra rations as agricultural workers, but, at the present moment, they get none of these privileges. They are not allowed to draw extra rations while living in the Army camps; they only draw the Service scale of rations, which is less than the active service scale, and much less than the entitlement of an agricultural worker, who gets a considerably bigger allowance of bread and cheese, although, as the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to


the Ministry of Agriculture knows, he ought to get more meat and other food as well. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider that problem, and to take action about it. We have made provision in Service camps for our own squatters, and we should make similar provision for the Poles, as otherwise they will get "fed up" with their present life, and will eventually want to go back to Poland.

7.57 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Willey: I am sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett) will not expect me to follow him in his arguments about rural houses. I represent an urban area, and, in any event, rural housing was discussed separately some time ago. About the Debate in general, I can only say that the Opposition has been so disappointing as even to disappoint themselves. All we got from the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) was a good deal of froth from very small beer, and all we got from the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) was evidence that he had not read his brief, and that in any case, even if he had it was a very bad brief indeed.
I am glad to have caught your eye, Mr. Diamond, because I had the privilege to be a member of the Select Committee which inquired into housing expenditure, and which reported in November last year. Whatever the arguments about the generality of the Debate, I think it remains significant that there has been no Debate on housing since the issue of that report. I rather gathered from the right hon. Member for Southport that the present intention is to hold annual Debates on housing. Even that is surprising if it is the case. I was led to believe that housing would be one of the most controversial subjects in immediate postwar politics. At any rate, it presumably means that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health is in a position to claim that he has implemented the various recommendations made in that Select Committee's Report. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) called attention to the black market. In my opinion, talk of the black market is wildly exaggerated. In fact, we called attention in our report to the opinion of witnesses that it is only in London and certain of the big towns,

where the authorities cannot spare the staff to inspect the work being done, that the black market seriously affects the supply of labour.
The major difficulty is the absolute shortage of labour, both in the building industry and in the manufacture of building materials, and also the shortage of certain basic raw materials. It is obvious that without operatives we cannot build houses, and that without building materials the operatives cannot get on with the work of building houses. I do not think the difficulties which have been overcome are sufficiently widely appreciated. They certainly were not appreciated by the hon. Member for Hertford when he claimed that my right hon. Friend inherited an industry geared up in 1939 to a high productive effort. I would like to refer to paragraph 20 of the Select Committee's Report, where we called attention to these facts:
The dislocation of the industry caused by the war has created major difficulties. In 1944 the number of building operatives employed was as low as 496,000. Virtually no houses were built during the war. Contractors' teams were broken up. Many men served in the Forces; of those who remained, some were diverted to building camps and factories and later to the repair of bomb damage, and others were directed to work in factories. All are seven years older, and during this seven years there has been no inflow of recruits to the industry. Apart from the general shortage, the labour within the industry is out of balance—a factor aggravated by the temporary housing programme.
Against that background, any fair-minded person, to whatever party he belongs, must admit that considerable progress has been made. There was at one time a good deal of talk about the Class B releases. It is quite clear that so far as the building trade is concerned, the Class B release scheme worked efficiently and to schedule, and was of considerable assistance to the building trade.
Again, there has been a good deal of criticism of the Government training schemes, but it is clear that those schemes, by and large, have worked excellently and have made a first-class contribution to the labour requirements in the building trade. I would like however to put to the Parliamentary Secretary two questions with which I hope he will be able to deal when he replies. Amid the confusion and


welter of figures and statistics available, it is rather difficult to get precise information about the relevant factors. From the Economic Survey of 1947, it appears that at the end of last year there were 943,000 male operatives in the building industry, and that the target for the end of this year is one million operatives. I should like to know how far we have gone towards attaining that target. Again, I should like some further information on the difficult problem which I have mentioned, of the balance of the trades within the industry, because it was a little alarming to hear one of the trade unions in the industry recently complaining of a lack of balance in the building trades.
Equally important is the question of the manufacture of building materials. It may be my own shortcoming, but I again found it difficult to obtain precise information about the relevant factors on the important fronts. During our inquiry the Ministry of Works stated that on building materials generally, the labour employed was little, if any, more than half the labour employed before the war. I should like to know what progress has been made since then, because this is a matter even more fundamental than the building trade itself. Let me take brickmaking as an example. In 1938 there were 55,000 men employed in the brickmaking industry. In October, 1946 there were only 40,000. I say "only," but, in fact, that 40,000 represented a considerable achievement. Between August, 1945, and October, 1946, the manpower in the brickmaking industry had been increased from a figure as low as 11,500 to 40,000.
I have heard my right hon. Friend the Minister refer to the stacks of bricks which are to be seen at the moment on some of the housing sites. We cannot accept that as an argument for not immediately stepping up brick production to its maximum. Let me give the monthly production figures. In 1938 our average monthly production figure was 650 million bricks. By September, 1946, we had reached 364 million bricks a month. In spite of any stacks there may be on the sites, we must step up brick production. We must as soon as possible get back to the 1938 average level of 650 million bricks a month. Until we do that, we cannot expect to get the building which

is essential if we are to push ahead with the housing programme.
I should like to know what progress has been made this year in re-manning the industries manufacturing the orthodox essential basic materials for the building industry. I do not think it is any good depending upon substitutes. After all, substitutes rely upon raw materials in short supply or imports, and if we are to extend the plants for substitutes it will take just as long and will be just as expensive as extending the plants for the orthodox traditional materials.
I understand that the temporary housing programme is nearing its completion. I think it has served an immediate purpose admirably, but I think it is now very properly being brought to an end. I think it had the inevitable disadvantage that it tended further to upset the already upset balance of trade within the industry. Now that the temporary housing programme is nearing completion, I would like to put one or two questions to the Parliamentary Secretary with which, perhaps, he will deal when he replies. In the first place, what use is to be made of the factories which have hitherto been engaged in the temporary housing programme? In particular, what use is to be made of the factories which have been producing the aluminium houses? The Select Committee was informed that the cost of the aluminium house itself was estimated to be £1,000 and that £700 had already been fixed. Only £300 remained to be fixed, and, of that £300, we understood that £200 was an estimate for factory overheads, and £100 for materials bought by the manufacturer in the free market. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how that cost has, in fact, worked out? The Committee recommended that firm contracts should be placed at the earliest possible moment. I understand that orders are being placed for 15,000 permanent aluminium houses. Are those contracts based on a fixed price, and, if so, perhaps we could be informed how the prices work out.
I would like to say a few words about the question of regional organisation. At the time of the inquiry, the Select Committee was not convinced that the relations between the regional officers and the local authorities were in every case equally satisfactory. By and large we found that


the difficulties tended to be with the larger local authorities. On the other hand, the smaller local authorities tended to get a good deal of benefit from the regional organisations. We recommended a full investigation to promote the smoother working of the regional machinery. We appreciated that a good deal of advice and assistance was given through the regional officers to the local authorities. We appreciated—and I am sure the regional officers appreciate—that, after all, it is the local authorities that remain responsible for the building of the houses. But I hope, personally, that by now the regional organisation has got through its teething troubles, that it has settled down; and I anticipate an assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that investigation has been held and the position improved. A subsidiary point, not unimportant, is this: that, at the moment, in building there is an acute shortage of architectural and technical staff. I would urge that every step be taken wherever possible to prevent such highly skilled staff engaging unnecessarily on supervisory work. I hope myself that inquiries have been made—and are constantly made—to ensure that no architectural or technical staff are unnecessarily engaged at regional level on supervisory work.
My personal impression from these inquiries into the regional organisation is, that any examination of the housing problem in itself reveals the inadequacies of our present structure of local government. I agree with the Minister; I do not think that it would be fair or accurate to attribute any delay in the solution of the housing problem to deficiencies in local government. But I think that, probably, any comprehensive review of the structure of local government would reveal the necessity for an urgent and speedy change and I hope that the Government will keep that under review. Finally, not as a member of the Select Committee but as a member of this Committee, and, in particular, as a Member on these benches, I would say that, reviewing the progress of housing generally, recognising the immense difficulties that have confronted my right hon. Friend, we are convinced that, by his vigorous and forthright manner and, as important, by his sympathetic approach to the local authorities, he has tackled the housing problem in such a way as to bring immeasurable credit to His Majesty's Government.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. J. H. Hare: I think the Committee will agree that in the last three speeches the atmosphere of heat engendered by the rather exceptional day has rather vanished from the Debate.

Mr. Molson: The sun is setting.

Mr. Hare: As my hon. Friend reminds me, the sun is setting. But we have had three very constructive speeches. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow (Lieut.-Colonel Corbett), put forward a very eloquent appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary for some answer on many problems that beset rural housing. The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) is always good to listen to on housing. He has an amount of experience in connection with the building industry that no other hon. Member has, and I hope that the Minister of Health will take some advice from that very wise Member of his own party. I hope, for instance, that he will be wise and not set target figures which he might not be able to fulfil. I am not sure whether that advice is necessary to the right hon. Gentleman, because I think he is capable of looking after himself so far as political manoeuvres are concerned. But he will always have a very constant and wise counsellor in the hon. Member for East Woolwich. I hope he will pay particular attention to what the hon. Member said about the temporary housing programme. The hon. Member, besides being a zealous Socialist Member of Parliament, is also loyal to his old friends of the Coalition, and I think he gave a very unbiased appreciation of the great planning work that the Coalition Government did to make the present temporary housing programme possible. Possibly the Minister of Health has been converted since this time last year. At that time, speaking of the temporary housing programme, he said:
… we are struggling with all the worst features of the most ill-conceived programme any Government ever put before the country—the temporary housing programme … that programme is crazy … we have to struggle at every stage, to try to overcome the bad planning of the temporary housing programme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1946; Vol. 426, c. 904.]
How very different that language is from the language he used today. How very different it is from the language used


by the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. F. Willey), who said that the temporary housing programme has served admirably our immediate purposes. That, politics aside, is the view of the average Member of this Committee.
After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay), I was somewhat horrified at the thought of having to listen to a series of speeches from the Government benches proclaiming that everything in the garden was lovely, and that nothing could be better. The hon. Member for North-West Hull put up a most extraordinary performance in a most eloquent speech. At one moment he said he was an employer of building labour and had no difficulty in carrying out his responsibility in the housing programme, and the next moment he said that private enterprise—which, presumably, he represents in his private capacity—was not doing its bit towards helping the Minister in his national housing project. I should have thought that was beside the point. On the other hand, the Minister of Health was more forthright. He admitted two definite weaknesses in his programme: first, that by the end of last year the phasing of his programme had got out of focus; and secondly, that too many houses were being started, with the result that too few houses were being completed. Again—I suppose for political purposes—he tried to give the Committee the impression that those difficulties had been overcome; and that he had, in fact, succeeded in arresting the starting of new houses in order to build up the number of houses that he can hope to complete by the end of this year.
I took the trouble to look at the figures, and I do not think they are as satisfactory as the Minister would like to make out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) save the national figures as in May of this year—the last figures available. He pointed out that 6,564 houses were completed and 13,923 started; in other words, twice as many houses were started for the new programme as were completed during May, which is a good building month. It still does not look as if the proportion is quite right. Even more disquieting figures are those for the London County Council. I am glad to see present the hon. Member for Ken-

nington (Mr. Gibson), who is the chairman of the L.C.C. housing committee. The L.C.C. is the largest housing authority in England and what they are trying to do bears some relation to the general problem. In the three months, April, May and June, 447 new permanent houses and flats were completed, whereas during that same period 16,023 were started. That shows that, instead of the national figure of a two to one difference, as far as the L.C.C. is concerned, four times as many new houses and flats were started as were completed during those three months.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to say something about this all-important side of the housing programme at the moment. It is easy for anyone to say: "There is a shortage of materials." Of course, there is; and what is more, it looks as though that shortage may get worse. Timber cannot become more plentiful, in view of what has happened recently in our negotiations with Russia. If we fail to achieve our coal target for this year, we may lose steel and other valuable components essential to the continuation of house building. When one sees these hundreds of thousands of houses dotted all over the country in various stages of development, with no progress being made towards their completion, one realises what a vast amount of valuable material is being locked up in them, thereby preventing many other houses from being completed.

Mr. Gibson: Where are they?

Mr. Hare: It the hon. Member takes the figures for the houses under construction and compares them with the likely completion of houses he will find his answer.

Mr. David Jones: Is it not a fact that the houses completed in the second three months of this year were the houses started at the beginning of the year when the weather was bad for building, and if this is the best time to build houses, is it not obvious that more would be started now than in any other month of the year?

Mr. Hare: That may be true. I believe that this is the crux of the situation. The Minister of Health stated that he was aware of the fact that his programme had got out of phase by the end of 1946,


and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will have something more to say on this important point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said that large local authorities like London had ample materials, whereas smaller local authorities were held up through lack of materials, but the Minister, in his usual ingenious way, tried to make out that my hon. Friend was exaggerating. I am sure that the chairman of the L.C.C. housing committee will confirm what he told the L.C.C. last May. He said that we had not had our housing programme held up by lack of materials, but that our problem was labour. It is true that since May there have been shortages of cement and certain types of plaster board but up to then we had no major problem in regard to materials, whereas it is well known that many local authorities have had to stop building because of lack of materials. Our problem is lack of materials. In this connection I was interested to hear the Minister say that he had been able to put 60 per cent. of the building industry on to the sole job of building houses.

Mr. J. Edwards: Not on to the sole job of putting up houses, but on to housing generally.

Sir. Hare: What is very disturbing is that in London we, as a housing authority, have been able only with great difficulty to raise our building force to 11,000, whereas what we need to carry out our programme is 20,000. There still seem to be certain adjustments the Minister could make in trying to get a balanced labour force as well as adequate material. The Minister's second admission was that output was not as satisfactory as he would have wished, and he made a very eloquent appeal to building operatives and employers in the building industry to help solve our national problem. He said that he had decided to amend Regulation 56AB.
He also pointed out that he hoped that the system of payment by results in the industry would go a long way towards getting that increased output for which he and the nation so urgently longed. But there was a weakness in the right hon. Gentleman's case—it is always a weakness with the Minister that nothing is ever

wrong—and it was this: Why have we had to wait two years for the right hon. Gentleman and the Government to take that action? Why have we had to wait two years for them to become aware of the fact that productivity in the building industry is not as satisfactory as could have been wished? On that point I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will defend the Minister, because it seems wicked that two years should elapse before any action is taken by the Government to get increased productivity out of the building industry.
I do not want to speak too long on a subject which is dear to my heart—rural housing—but I must refer to what was said by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Lady Megan Lloyd George) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow. The hon. Lady pointed out, in eloquent terms, that the future of the country during the next two or three years will depend on the extra food production from agricultural districts. I am sure that both she and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ludlow will agree that we must get another 100,000 workers on the land during the next 18 months, because by the end of next year we shall lose a far greater number than that in the way of German prisoners-of-war. What do the Government intend to do? It is no use saying, as the Minister said, "I hope that by increased productivity we shall be able to get more houses in the rural areas." That is not enough. We must get this number of people housed and working on the land within the next 18 months. It is a big problem, and I hope it will not be treated——

Mr. Alpass: What did the hon. Gentleman's party do about it during the last 20 years?

Mr. Molson: That is a silly question.

Mr. Hare: The interruption of the hon. Member opposite was rather beside the point. I want to suggest to the Minister that the Government must allow a large proportion of prefabricated Airey houses or others which are suitable to the rural districts out of the general national pool. Agriculture must be treated in the same way as mining. It is just as important, possibly more important. The right hon. Gentleman should give some guidance to rural district councils. He should tell them that a fixed proportion of the new


accommodation they provide should be let to agricultural workers. The figures are staggering. According to the applications for subsidies for agricultural workers' houses, only 1,000 agricultural workers have been housed out of the 18,000 houses which have been built in rural districts since the end of the war. I do not know whether I am right. No, I have just been handed the figures, and I see that the actual number is 587. I was too optimistic. If, out of 18,000 houses constructed, not more than 500 or 600 have been occupied by agricultural workers——

Mr. Alpass: Whose fault is that?

Mr. Hare: This is not a political question. I think we might have some assurance from the Parliamentary Secretary that the Government will take some action in this matter. In this matter of rural housing I suggest that party prejudice should be dropped, and that it is quite wrong for a Minister to prevent a farmer or landowner from putting up a cottage for an agricultural worker, whether within the one-in-four ratio or not. To prevent this being done when we are faced with grave food shortage is so much nonsense.
I have had a certain satisfaction out of the Debate because, for the first time, the Minister of Health is prepared to admit, although he does it very subtly, that certainly things are not going so well with his housing programme as he would like. He is, in fact, beginning to realise that the Government's success in housing will depend not on their speeches but on the number of houses they succeed in building. These plans which were discussed in great detail when the Government first came into power remind me—if hon. Members can remember what a banana looks like—of a bunch of bananas, some green, some yellow, and the rest rotten. It is to getting these plans more suited to existing conditions that I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to apply his mind.

8.31 p.m.

Mr. Julius Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) will forgive me if I do not follow his line of argument, except to comment on one point. He made the remarkable suggestion that the one-in-four ratio should be

dropped in favour of the agricultural worker. Does he seriously intend to suggest that the speculative builder will put up houses and sell them to the agricultural labourer?

Mr. Hare: I said that the one-in-four ratio should be ignored where a landowner or farmer was prepared to put up houses for agricultural workers only.

Mr. Silverman: There is nothing to stop him from doing that. The point is that, under the law as it exists today, once the speculative builder has put up the house, there is nothing to prevent him from selling it to anyone he chooses; he is an entirely free agent. Hon. Members opposite say that the Government believe that everything in the housing garden is lovely. We have never said anything of the sort, and the right hon. Gentleman has never said anything of the sort. Nor has the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Mr. R. Mackay). All we have said is that, bearing in mind the physical difficulties that exist today, we are making a reasonably good job of it.
There have been faults, of course; even the right hon. Gentleman is not perfect. There are one or two points that probably concern his Department, or possibly the Department of the Ministry of Works, to which I would refer. The first is the supply of materials. There is no doubt that, whatever may have been the position a year ago, during the past few months the supply of building materials, especially wood, cement, glass, steel, etc., has been an extremely serious bottle-neck for the building industry. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith) said that he wanted the Minister to relax the control on the supplies of these materials.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Where they are no longer scarce.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman really means to say that where materials are no longer scarce, there is any difficulty in obtaining permits?

Mr. Walker-Smith: There is. It causes great delay.

Mr. Silverman: I am sorry to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. So far as most of those materials are concerned, and especially those which are scarce, I am asking the Minister, on the contrary, to tighten his controls and make them more


effective, because I am going to suggest to him that the controls at the present moment under which these permits are executed are not effective. In some cases they amount to little more than a farce. Let us see what happens when a builder applies for a permit. He obtains four forms in variegated colours, white, pink, yellow and green in order that he may clearly understand the difference between the various sorts of materials. I believe that they are issued in triplicate. One is kept by the builder, one goes to the local authority and another goes to the Minister's Department. When they are issued this is what happens? The man applying simply gets his priority symbol under the licensing authority. He goes to a builder to get the supply of materials or whatever it may be. It might be a supply of mortar or bricks or anything of that nature, but nothing is marked or ticked off on the sheet. Nothing is surrendered. I do not know what was intended in the first place, but this is the actual practice today. There is nothing to prevent a person going that same day or the next day to another builder, using the identical forms and getting the same materials or supplies twice, three times, four times, or five times on that same form. I am told that not only that but in many cases a builder simply rings up his supply merchant, quotes his priority symbol, and that is sufficient for him to get supplies.
The consequence at the moment is that there is a serious black market in building materials. One hon. Member on this side of the Committee said that there was no black market in building materials to be seriously examined. That is not my information. Recently I have been in conference with certain gentlemen who are called in the building trade the Association of Supervisory Staffs and Technicians. Most of them are either building foremen or building technicians. They have a fairly good idea of what is going on in the building trade. I am sure that the black market is very considerable, especially in London, and even if my information were not so, I should be very much surprised if there was not a black market in view of the easy way in which these forms can be used time and time again to get building materials without a check. Is it not possible to devise some more adequate safeguards and ensure that a builder gets his

materials once and once only? Is it not possible to see that the form is surrendered when the material is supplied and that it is not used again? I believe if that were done it would help to remove one of the bottlenecks which at present is affecting the building trade.
I pass to an entirely different matter, which relates to one of the problems that is besetting the large majority of housing authorities and their schemes. That is the large number of evictions which are being made today by the county courts. The evicted persons come to the local authorities, with the result that their housing programmes are seriously dislocated and their progress retarded. I have here some interesting figures relating to Birmingham. Between 5th May and 26th July there were no fewer than 162 people who were evicted and presented themselves at the estate department for accommodation. This was not the total seeking accommodation, but the number of persons who did so because they had been evicted. The effect of this is that over a third of the Birmingham estate department's available houses are disposed of in this manner. Birmingham's rehousing plan is being seriously dislocated by this spoke which is put into the wheels of the estate department's system. Why is this? I submit that there are two different reasons. Most of these people are evacuated tenants and the landlord obtains possession under what is called the greater hardship Clause of the Rent Restrictions Acts.
In my view, the landlord obtains the order because the county court judges seem to take into consideration the fact that estate department accommodation will be available for tenants who are turned out. I think that this kind of thing is all too prevalent, and it may be that the county court judges interpret the law of greater hardship as being a question of the landlord's hardship on the one hand, and that of the tenant on the other, mitigated by the fact that accommodation is available through the local authority. I do not think that that was the intention of those who drafted the Rent Restriction Acts. There is another sore point with the estate department; that is the decision made some time ago where the tenant of two rooms of a house who had joint use of a kitchen was held


not to be a protected tenant. His protection has gone under that decision, and that undoubtedly affects—

The Chairman (Major Milner): The hon. Member appears to be suggesting legislation which is, of course, out of Order on Supply.

Mr. Silverman: I am submitting the position as it is. It is not, of course, for me to suggest what steps can be taken by way of remedy, but in assessing our housing difficulties, surely I am entitled to point out the situation? I entirely agree, Major Milner, that it is not for me to suggest that legislation should be introduced.

The Chairman: The purpose of this Supply Day is to discuss the details of the administration of the Minister of Health with regard to housing. This does not seem to me to include the matter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and if that is so, he had better pass on to another part of the subject.

Mr. Silverman: I agree entirely that on the question of results it is very obvious——

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has been dealing with the operation of the courts, which, again is not a matter for which the Minister of Health is responsible. In any case, the discussion of any modification of legislation would be out of Order.

Mr. Proctor: Further to that point of Order. Would it not be possible to deal with this outside legislation by means of an increase in housing Supply?

The Chairman: The suggestion seems somewhat remote.

Mr. Silverman: I was simply pointing out the present position, Major Milner. I listened very carefully to hon. Members on the other side criticising the measures which have been put into operation by my right hon. Friend. I heard my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hull saying that the hon. Member for Hertford in giving his six points, had, like the mountain, gone into labour and produced a mouse. When the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) spoke, a mountain again went into labour and

all the signs of anguish of labour were produced, but not even a mouse. I can only imagine that the right hon. Gentleman had not even a piece of cheese.

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I intervene in this Debate in order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health a number of questions which arise out of the major exchanges between the right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Benches. I am sure that he will remember the housing Debate we had in March. It was, therefore, a little unreasonable of his right hon. Friend to claim that the Opposition had not asked for a Debate for 12 months past. I know that was a Debate upon rural housing and that we might have asked for a whole Supply Day to be devoted to urban housing. The right hon. Gentleman complained about the delay in our asking for this general Debate. Had we asked for it in the spring, the alibi would have been that the bad weather had held up building operations. We thought it wiser to wait until the clement weather had made conditions favourable for building, in order that we might adjudge the right hon. Gentleman quite fairly upon his performance in the most favourable period of the year.
Actually, the figure that has been given in the country by propagandists of the party opposite is that 400,000 homes have been provided. The Minister has complained about the accuracy of that figure. I think that, as a matter of fact, the entirely accurate figure is 390,997, which includes 111,155 tenants provided for in Service camps. That was the point that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson).

Mr. J. Edwards: From what statement is the hon. Gentleman quoting when he talks about 400,000 homes?

Mr. Molson: To be frank, I cannot at this moment turn to the particular newspaper. Whether it was the "Daily Herald," which I read at breakfast every morning, or whether it was one of the less popular newspapers, I think it has been the figure generally given out.

Mr. Edwards: We do not want a wrangle about the figures, especially if there is some genuine misunderstanding. I suspect that if the figure 400,000 has


been seen somewhere, it is not the figure for England and Wales, but the comparable figure of 400,000 in the programme which applies to the whole of Great Britain.

Mr. Molson: As the Parliamentary Secretary has now interrupted me twice, I hope that you, Mr. Chairman, will allow me an extra three minutes. We are most anxious in this important controversy to put the facts quite fully and fairly before the country. It is noteworthy that whatever may be the correct figure on that point, the Parliamentary Secretary will confirm the proportions as between permanent housing, which is 80,300, and temporary housing, which is 94,400, so that temporary housing, which his right hon. Friend denounced last year and which his party denounced when in Opposition during the war, has made a larger contribution towards the provision of general housing for the people than permanent housing has so far been able to do.
We should like to have full particulars about the finished houses programme which was launched by the right hon. Gentleman last year. It was rather a disappointment. Something in the neighbourhood of 25,288 houses were at eaves level at 31st August, 1946, and despite the appeal, only 13,798, or 54·5 per cent., of these have been completed. We have naturally been very glad to hear the outspoken and frank words of the Minister about the decrease in the productivity of labour, especially in the matter of bricklaying. In view of the fact that we have now very nearly the same number in the industry as before the war, it is necessary to find some explanation for the reduced number of bricks laid in order to account for the difference between the number of houses being built under this Government after the war and the number being built in 1937 or 1938.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not object to dealing with a certain matter about rural housing which I raised in the Debate in March and which the Minister of Health had rather forgotten because at the time he was indisposed. I cannot repeat the lengthy speech I made on that occasion about the increased subsidy under Section 3 of the Housing (Financial and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1946, but on that occasion, in view of the fact

that local authorities could obtain a very much larger subsidy if the houses were occupied by agricultural labourers and their families, I asked whether it was not possible broadly to judge how many agricultural labourers had been provided with housing by ascertaining in how many cases local authorities had made applications for the increased subsidies. In an answer which the Parliamentary Secretary gave today—I greatly appreciate his courtesy in seeing that I got the ammunition for my speech before the Debate—he said the number was 587. Perhaps he will deal with this matter and explain whether, in the general housing programme the Government have so far carried out, only 587 of the houses have qualified for the agricultural subsidy.
I feel about the Government's general policy that if it satisfies the Minister of Health and his more servile followers on those benches, that is the most that it can do. At some time in the future perhaps we shall have an opportunity of passing judgment on it.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. s. Middleton: I wish to draw the Committee's attention to what has been said from the benches opposite regarding the slowness of local authorities as the chosen instrument of the Government in carrying out the Government's housing policy. In doing so I would like to extend an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) to come to Plymouth and get a new slant on the subject of house-building, for if he is really concerned with housing I am quite sure that it would be an exhilarating experience for him. If he is concerned only with party politics, on the other hand, it would be a most depressing experience for him.
Indeed, I greatly regret that when the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) came to Plymouth last autumn to make a speech on housing, he did not ask the leader of his local party to take him round our housing estates in order that he might sec for himself what the Labour-controlled local authority of Plymouth were doing in this matter. If he had done that instead of spending his morning in a millionaire's study, if the local Press is to be believed, he would not have been able to make the kind of speech he made that afternoon, nor could


the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport, had he had that experience have made the kind of speech he made today. For the position is that, up to a month ago, in the City of Plymouth there had been erected and inhabited 2,500 houses, some temporary, some permanent. That is altogether apart from the very heavy programme of war damage repairs which the building labour in the city has had to carry through. I suggest that this reflects great credit on at least one local authority and its officers, and that they have made of the housing of the people of Plymouth not simply a job to be done, but a crusade, since they gained control in November, 1945.
I go further and say I am quite certain that that record would not have been achieved but for the fact that we had a Labour local authority elected in November, 1945. I know this is an unpopular point on the benches opposite, and that there have been protests during today but I have in my hand a list which I had prepared for another purpose, from information supplied to me by the town clerks of several of our badly war-damaged cities. To take one or two at random, I find the position is as follows. In Bristol, where a Labour majority had been in operation only for a short period before the war broke out, there were 3,000 applicants for houses on the waiting list. In Liverpool, which had a record of Tory municipal control, there were, before the war broke out, 14,000 families on the housing list. In Southampton there were between 1,500 and 2,000 families on the waiting list, and in my own city of Plymouth we were faced with a waiting list of 4,000. There are many other points I would like to have made in this Debate had time allowed, but I have said enough to show that, where there are Labour-controlled municipalities, entrusted by the Minister and by the Government with this task, the job has been well done, the job is being well done, and we have every reason to be proud of what has been achieved.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Harold Roberts: We have reached a time in the Debate when I feel one must be brief, so I propose to make only two points. The first is in regard to an interjection from an hon. Gentleman who in-

quired what my party had been doing for the last 20 years. For the last two years we have not had to worry, for the matter has been in the super-eminent hands of the Minister. For six years before that we were engaged in a war. For 12 years before that we were trying to pick up and repair the ruins of the housing trade wrought by the Liberals a generation ago with the capable assistance of the then Labour Party——

Mr. Alpass: May I inform the hon. Gentleman that there are some houses in my Division that have been condemned for 50 years. What has the right hon. Gentleman's party been doing all that time?

Mr. Roberts: For a good part of it, 40 years ago the Liberals had an uninterrupted run and, after that, they were kept in power only through the help of the Labour Party, who do not seem to have exerted much pressure in this matter. If I am asked what my party has done, I turn to my city of Birmingham. Between the wars we were able to overtake the arrears to such an extent that, according to the impartial testimony of the city engineer, there was no housing shortage. According to the city engineer—[Interruption.]—if I may interrupt the conversation on the opposite benches, I think I am right in saying that that is the impartial opinion of the city engineer based on the report of the Medical Officer of Health.

Mr. Shurmer: Tell the Committee about the 50,000 slum houses in Birmingham. Tell them about the hovels.

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) must not interrupt if the hon. Member for Handsworth (Mr. H. Roberts) does not give way.

Mr. Shurmer: Tell him not to mislead the people.

Mr. Roberts: The other point I have to make arises from the very important statement of the Minister to the effect that experience shows that ideological considerations alone are not sufficient to ensure output. Apparently one must have material rewards, and although everything has been perfect in the last two years, it is now going to be more


perfect because the Government policy is to be reversed and payment by results is to be encouraged. That is to say that it was quite perfect to go north, but even better, of course, to go south. It is very interesting to learn from the other side of the Committee that ideology is to be reinforced by material rewards. I suppose that even the profit motive may not be considered illegitimate, unless it is right for men to have bonuses and wrong for employers to make profits. However that may be, I think the utterance of the Minister is most important and gives a gleam of hope. I feared he was completely impervious to reason and experience, but it seems that the failure of this policy is so complete that even he, now realises the time has come for a change, and very sagaciously he makes a virtue of it and endeavours to represent it as a real find.

9.4 p.m.

Mr. Gibson: I am quite convinced, having listened to part of this Debate, and having read the Opposition Press, that the house-building programme which the Minister of Health has been conducting has so far succeeded, that the Opposition find it impossible to produce any really effective criticism, and are therefore indulging in the spreading of gloom, and throwing out vague hints of everything being wrong. How on earth the right hon. Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson) could say that there was no plan and no houses when he had the housing returns in his hand, I fail to understand. Some 184,000 permanent and temporary houses have been built since the end of the war. There is not much failure about that so far as 184,000 families living in them are concerned. The hon. Member for Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) talked about London. I will not follow him in what he said about the work of the L.C.C. Housing Committee, but I am quite prepared to defend that on some other occasion. I know that in London people are not only seeing houses going up, but that, in fact, as a result of the activities of all the local authorities in London, with very little help from private enterprise, there are, as the statistics show, 76,000 families now in homes which did not exist when the war ended. If that is failure, I hope that the Minister of Health will have a few more failures of that kind in the next year or two.

[An HON. MEMBER: "Does that figure include requisitioned houses?"] No.
It has been suggested that a good deal of the fault, if there is a fault, in the output of houses, is due to the operatives in the building industry. It has been suggested that the bricklayer is not giving as big an output as he ought to do. I have said publicly what I think about that. It is true that in London the output per man is no more than about 75 per cent. of the prewar output. That is not all due to the laziness of the bricklayer, the carpenter or the plasterer. As has already been said, houses built in these days are more like homes than the boxes which were built before the war. They are larger and have many more fittings inside them, and it takes longer to build them, as well as taking more materials. It is not only the operatives who are concerned. What about the need for more efficient site organisation by the contractors, the need for efficient mechanical aids for labour? We need 3,000 building trade labourers on L.C.C. schemes, and they use mechanical aids today. If the Minister put more drive into compelling contractors to go in for a great deal more mechanisation on the site and more effectively organising the site work, it would greatly assist in the output of houses during the rest of this year.
When I hear people complaining that housing in this country is a complete failure, I cannot help thinking of the many deputations from other countries which, during the past 12 months, I have had the pleasure of meeting, people from America, France, Belgium, Australia, and many other countries. They came to England to study, among other things, what we are doing in housing, and all of them said that the people of this country were making marvellous strides in the reconstruction of their shattered homes, and they were particularly amazed at the vast strides which, in their eyes, appeared to be made with the building of homes for people to live in. We are doing much more than any other country in Europe in the building of homes for the people, and under difficult circumstances. I remember the experience which those in the building industry had in the years immediately following the 1914–18 war. I was in the industry, I know the complete muddle and mess into which the Government got then: I know the complete


inefficiency of the industry on the sites and in the organisation of the building industry I, with many others, suffered unemployment and loss of wages and short time, and from the effects of bad weather, etc.
A move is now being made to improve efficiency in the industry, to organise the job much more effectively. I believe that if the Minister of Health can get the contractors to organise the work more, to introduce the most up-to-date scientific methods of site organisation, and, at the same time, encourage the operatives, as we hope they will be encouraged, to adopt a payment by results scheme, there will be a rapid increase in output this year. It will be tremendous, and * will justify our faith in the success of the present Minister.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Marples: I would like to join with the hon. Member for Kennington (Mr. Gibson) in hoping for success, but I am convinced that we shall not get the best out of labour until we have a system of payment by results. In the short space of time available to me, I would like to ask two questions of the Parliamentary Secretary before I go on to my main point. Is the hold-up in housing due to shortage of materials or labour? I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in his speech said that it was due to materials——

Mr. Bevan: I said no such thing.

Mr. Marples: I rather think that the hon. Gentleman did. The hon. Member for East Woolwich (Mr. Hicks) said it was due to materials and that the lack of materials had been the limiting factor the whole time. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at HANSARD tomorrow he will find that he did say it.

Mr. Bevan: No, no.

Mr. Marples: In today's "Star" there is an article, or an interview, with the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works——

Mr. Bevan: If the hon. Member will allow me—and he has plenty of time; over 20 minutes—I said that the limiting factor on building is labour and materials. That happens to be the limiting factor on everything.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member for East Woolwich said the difficulty was due to shortage of material. In an interview reported in the "Star" today, the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Works said that the biggest shortage in building is that of labour. Confusion confounded. Not only are the Government muddled in their money policy but they are muddled in their housing policy also.
The other question I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is in regard to the Minister's speech. If the Minister of Health will kindly give his attention for a moment—when he has finished erecting an imaginary house—I would like to know whether or not he said that 60 per cent. of the building force was engaged on new buildings.

Mr. Bevan: On houses.

Mr. Marples: On new houses?

Mr. Bevan: On housing.

Mr. J. Edwards: When the Committee was rather empty, I explained this point. I said that 60 per cent. was the proportion of the total building force engaged on housing generally.

Mr. Marples: I have looked carefully into the last figures available, in the housing return up to 31st January, 1947. I do not think that they have been split up since then. Would the Parliamentary Secretary give reasons why he made his earlier statement? I apologise for being absent at the time, but I have listened to most of the Debate. It has been suggested that the Opposition have not made any constructive suggestions about the building problem.

Mr. James Hudson: Hear, hear.

Mr. Marples: If the hon. Member for West Ealing will look at the reference in HANSARD tomorrow, he will get all the information he requires. First, on the question of distribution of building materials, the Opposition made a suggestion on 26th November, 1945, at column 968, that a committee could be appointed to go into the distribution of building material. At that time the right hon. Gentleman said that it was irrelevant. Seven months later, on 24th June, 1946, the Government appointed such a committee. There is suggestion No. 1 with


a time lag of seven months. Referring to the question of increased costs in the building industry, on 6th March, 1946, at column 438, the suggestion was made that a committee should be appointed to go into the question of the high cost of building with a view to making recommendations to bring the cost down. On this occasion the time lag increased. Fifteen months later the Government decided to take action. On 5th July, 1947, 15 months after the Opposition made the original suggestion, the Government appointed such a committee.
On the question of payment by results, this has been consistently advocated from these benches, and attention was drawn to Regulation 56AB at all times last year. We are told now that it is to be amended, but I would point out to the Committee that we have been told that for many weeks past, but it is still not amended and put into force.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is wrong.

Mr. Marples: When was it?

Mr. Bevan: It was promulgated last Friday.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman did not say "promulgated"; why does he not say the exact date?

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member must have heard what I said. The Order was promulgated last Friday; in other words, it was in operation from last Friday.

Mr. Marples: I am sorry I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman, but he is much more eloquent when he is on his feet than when he is sitting down. Then the Government do admit that they have got their housing programme out of phase? They said that they commenced too many new houses for the physical capacity of the industry to manage. On 25th March, 1946—it is recorded in col. 101 of HANSARD—the Opposition made the suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health—he was absent from that Debate, and the Minister of Works was in charge—that they should start fewer houses. Seventeen months later when it has dawned upon them, they are now, in fact, trying to get the industry back into phase. There are a dozen trades in the building industry, not one, and, once it is out of phase, you cannot put it back again quickly.
Having made the point that we have made some suggestions from this side, let me now make another constructive suggestion in the hope that it will be adopted before the average time-lag of the previous ones, which was about 13 months. It is that the instrument for building houses is not the right hon. Gentleman's Department, nor the local authorities, but the building industry. At the present time, the industry is in a bad state. It is very slow-working and very costly, and it is completely out of phase at the moment, but we must bear in mind the difficulties of the industry, which is one of the most difficult in the country, and, in particular, the twin headaches of bad weather and casual labour, which are sufficient to disorganise the most efficient industry. Every day, on a site, a different phase is in operation. It is not like a factory, where the raw material comes in at one end, has the same operation performed upon it and is turned out at the other end as a finished product. In building, for the first week, it will be footings, for the next, bricklaying, and so on, with carpenters, plasterers and all the rest.
It is quite hopeless for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the industry should concentrate on one type of house even when it is prefabricated, because his chosen instrument will not accept one type of house, and I have known, in my personal experience, where, when the first contract was to be placed by a very large local authority, they would not accept the standard design sent out by the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but turned it down as inadequate and said that they wanted something like 20 different designs. In those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame the industry for not getting started.
The suggestion which I am about to make will make me very unpopular with employers, of whom I am one, and even more unpopular with employees. If there is one industry which needs a complete overhaul, it is the building industry—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—and, I would suggest, as hon. Members are saying "Hear, hear" to that, that the Government should appoint a working party, because this is the one industry that really needs it. When appointing this working party, the right hon. Gentleman should be very careful to avoid the arithmetical equality between the trade


unions and the employers. If there are three trade union delegates and three employers' representatives on a working party, the result is going to be deadly. The only way to do it is to put an equal number of representatives from each side on the working party, and to bring in from outside a number of experts, such as quantity surveyors, civil engineers, technicians, and so on, who will have a majority over the trade itself. I offer that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman for what it is worth.
I now come to the main point of today's Debate, and will try to follow it through to a logical conclusion. I must here ask the indulgence of the Committee, because it is a little difficult to get these arguments over. On the eternal controversy of private enterprise versus local authorities, there seems to be a certain amount of confusion and misapprehension all the way round. If I may, I would like to try to define my views on it, for what they are worth. I am trying to be constructive, although, perhaps, the Parliamentary Secretary will attempt to tear them to pieces later on. The right hon. Gentleman is very eloquent and tends to oversimplify the issue. He said that the Government's objectives were to build permanent houses as fast as possible—I took down his actual words—and to give them to those who were in the greatest need. There were two phases of the Government's policy—the first was the technical one of building the houses as fact as possible, and the second was the social desirability of allotting them to people whom the right hon. Gentleman and his party thought ought to have them. I am going to try to define exactly what private enterprise does, and what it means in the way the right hon. Gentleman is using it. Private enterprise building contractors have two separate functions to perform. The first is to build houses under contract for anyone who agrees to employ them, and the second is to build houses for what is known as speculation, either for sale or for letting.
In the first case, they are under contract to the local authority. I want to discuss the first case first because, when a building firm has a building contract with a local authority, it is a contract which is several hundred pages in thickness, and no variation of any sort can be made in the tender,

specification or quantities without the written consent of the local authority. No contract has yet been completed to my knowledge, without variations of some sort being necessary. I have never known a contract that has been completed from beginning to end as per specification. Therefore, it means that, on a building site where the speed and efficiency of the work depend on the flow of the materials and the labour getting those materials, if the time and progress schedule is disrupted in any way, there is likely to be chaos, and the job will take longer.
Let me give a specific example. My firm were recently building several hundred houses for a local authority. According to the specification, they had to use a certain type of plaster. That plaster was in short supply. It was impossible to get it, and an alternative sort had to be used. But before that could be done, permission had to be got in writing from the local authority. Altogether it took five weeks to get that permission. In the meantime, ten trades were thrown out of work. After paying the men for a week—we get no money at all—they were taken to another site, and they could not be brought back.

Mr. Hicks: Why not start five weeks earlier?

Mr. Marples: How could we start five weeks earlier on another site when the contract was not signed? [Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman wants to say something, would he get to his feet and say it, because he is more audible when he does that?

Mr. Bevan: I say at once that when the hon. Gentleman makes these statements, unless he is prepared to give us all the facts, so that they can be investigated, what he is saying is not evidence; it is merely testimony.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman's eloquence convinces me just about as much on housing as it convinced the hon. Lady the Member for Cannock (Miss Lee) on newsprint. Now the nature of the officials of the local authorities is such that it is not in their own interest to make a speedy decision. What is wanted on a site is not necessarily a 100 per cent. correct decision but a speedy decision. If a local authority official makes a wrong decision he is sacked, or the local councillors come down on him like a ton of


bricks if he is correct, he will get promotion, but he gets nothing at all for being speedy. It is one of the technical reasons why private enterprise working under contract is slower than when it works on its own.
Let me give another example. If the right hon. Gentleman wants particulars I will send him the facts in writing. There was a contract with a large local authority for several hundred houses. The contract was signed, sealed and exchanged between the parties and agreed. At that stage the right hon. Gentleman, in his eloquence, would have said that it was handed over to private enterprise and that it was their job; but, in fact, it was not their job, because in that contract was a clause which said that the local authority reserved the right to nominate its own sub-contractor for electrical work. We started work on the site, and when we wrote inquiring for the name of the form which was going to do the electrical work it was two months before we got it, and we either wrote or telephoned every other day for it. In the meantime, the men were taken off the site and sent elsewhere. Before that they were paid for a week or so at the public expense, and during that time there was no building going on at all.
Perhaps I may declare my own interest in this matter. My interest is to build houses under contract for the local authorities, and I say here and now, that I, as a contractor, working for a local authority, cannot build them as quickly, or as cheaply as private enterprise building for speculation, which is something I do not and cannot do. As far as I am concerned, the point of view which I am now putting forward is really against my private interests.
If the right hon. Gentleman wants any more proof, there is an excellent article in "The Times" on 22nd April, 1947. In that article it was pointed out that private enterprise started 5,700 houses in 1945, 21,300 in 1946, and completed the total of 27,000 in 1946, taking an average of eight months to build each house. Municipal authorities started 20,400 in the first year, 1945; 3,500 in the second year, 1946; making a total of 23,900, which they completed in 1946, taking an average of 12 months Private enterprise completed them in eight months and the local authorities completed them in 12 months.
The right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that for technical efficiency—and I am not now talking about the social desirability of letting houses—both as to speed and as to cost, private enterprise is his best instrument. What the right hon. Gentleman is really doing, and doing very cleverly, if I may say so, is to confuse what he thinks is socially desirable and, perhaps, what he thinks is politically profitable, with what in fact is technically unattainable, and he is deliberately doing it in this Debate. He knows perfectly well that from the point of view of actually building the houses, private enterprise is cheaper, quicker and better than local authority building under contract.
It may not be that that is socially desirable. That is not the argument I am going into now. But I wanted first to prove that, from the point of view of building, private enterprise has it every time. I myself build the other way—for the local authorities. I am going to suggest that, if the right hon. Gentleman wants the best of both worlds, what he ought to do is to grant a subsidy to private enterprise, provided they give the houses to the people the right hon. Gentleman wants to have them. Or does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Widnes (Mr. Christopher Shawcross) who is laughing and sneering in the corner think that, whatever happens, local authorities must build—even at the cost of efficiency? I shall have to hurry through my other points or even leave them out altogether because of the lack of time. I want to say to the Parliamentary Secretary that at the present moment four out of every five houses are subsidised by the taxpayers, and if materials are reduced the Minister threatens to stop all building of houses by private enterprise. This will mean that every house in this country is subsidised by the taxpayer. What reasons can be advanced for saying that the economy of any country in the world can carry a burden like that?
I am going to suggest to the right hon. Gentleman regarding the second part of the argument—the question whether it is socially desirable—that houses should be allocated by the local authorities Personally, I think it is desirable, and I should think that physical need should determine the physical possession of the house. That does not mean to say that


physical need should determine who receives the subsidy. If a very rich man has to have a flat or a house, by reason of the fact that he has physical need of it, is it right that the less fortunate taxpayers, with not as much income as he, should subsidise him? Let me give an imaginary case. Suppose Lord Nuffield wanted a council house or a flat, and received it. Is the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health really going to suggest that he should be subsidised by less fortunate people like myself? I promised to sit down at 25 minutes past, so I really must conclude. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he will reply to these questions. I want to say to the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health in particular, and to the Government in general, that what is needed in housing, as, indeed, is needed in our general economic affairs, is a sense of urgency, leadership, and above all, national unity. We have none of those things today.

9.33 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): If I should follow the order of Debate, I should at once endeavour to deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), but I think my duty is to put first things first and, therefore, to deal with matters which, I think, are of greater importance to the Committee, even though they may not be so entertaining. I would begin by saying what I hope can be regarded as gracious words. I am grateful, as is also my right hon. Friend, for suggestions made sincerely during the course of this Debate. If there are some matters, as I know there are, which really appertain to the Ministry of Works Vote—and that is particularly true of some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. F. Willey)—I assure hon. Members that I will do my best in due course to let them have what they want.
Let me deal first with rural housing. A number of hon. Members, unfortunately when the Committee was thinnest, dealt with this matter; and we did have a discussion on it in the early part of the year. I do not underestimate the importance of it. It is important to the national

economy. It is important to the agricultural workers. Nor do I underestimate in any way the difficulties which have been presented to us. But I believe that at the moment we are attacking this problem by the only direct method open to us; that is to say, by seeing that houses are built on terms which will enable them to be let at reasonable rents. I challenge anybody to compare the inter-war years' record of the rural districts as a whole with what has been done in the rural districts since the end of the last war and to come to any other conclusion than that, for the first time in the history of this country, rural councils are really properly organised and on top of their job.
Questions were asked about the actual number of houses that had been let to agricultural workers, and the hon. Member for The High Peak (Mr. Molson) quoted a figure, which I had given him, in answer to a Question today, of 587 houses which had attracted the special subsidy. I ask him and the Committee not to take that figure as the figure of the number of houses that have, in fact, been let to agricultural workers, but to await the future housing returns, in which we shall show the number of houses let to agricultural workers from month to month. Perhaps I need not dilate on what we have been doing about the special scheme——

Mr. Molson: Are we to understand that a great many more have, in fact, been let? The hon. Gentleman will remember that under Section 3 of the Act, if they are let they do attract this larger subsidy, and one would naturally suppose that local authorities and private individuals would obtain the larger subsidy.

Mr. Edwards: The hon. Member must not understand anything of the kind. All he must understand is that I do not know at the moment, and I am asking him to wait until we have the information upon which the House can decide. I am not trying to avoid the issue here. We are getting the information at the request of hon. Members opposite, and when the information comes to hand we can, quite properly, be judged on it.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: This is a very important point. May I ask——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Edwards: I cannot give way.

Mr. Hudson: Well, I gave way

Mr. Edwards: I have answered the point—[HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I am quite willing to give way on points which have not been dealt with. I gave way to the hon. Member for The High Peak, who raised this matter, and I have given him a frank and, I hope, complete answer. Now, I must get on, in view of the limited time I have left. The right hon. Member for Southport had 41 minutes; I have something like 25, and I do not propose to waste any of it if I can help it. Now let me get on. I am certain that there is no need tonight to make another speech about the Airey house, but it is important to stress that although we have now allocated most of the 20,000 that were ordered, we are still held up on the matter of getting people to put in tenders at reasonable prices in order that the work may go on.
There is one matter in particular on which I think the Committee would wish to be informed. Hon. Members have manifested much interest in the subject of reconditioning. On this aspect we have had certain considerations in our minds: first, that the most urgent need was for more houses; and secondly, that reconditioning can improve houses but, as a general rule, does not produce more houses.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of Order. May I point out to you, Major Milner, with respect, that reconditioning involves legislation—certainly the reconditioning of rural houses—and would, therefore, be out of Order in this Debate?

Mr. Edwards: I was referring, Major Milner, to a point which had been put in the course of this Debate, and in the course of previous Debates, namely, that of reconditioning. If you rule that I cannot refer to a matter which has already been referred to by certain hon. Members during the Debate, I must, of course, accept your Ruling.

The Chairman: The hon. Member may not refer to matters which may involve legislation.

Mr. Molson: May I point out that a most mischievous circular was issued by the Ministry of Health——

The Chairman: Having regard to the shortness of time, I hope hon. Members will allow the Debate to proceed.

Mr. Molson: This is a point of Order, Major Milner. There was a circular issued by the Minister of Health in his administrative capacity in which he restricted the amount of repairs and reconditioning which could be done. I do not know what the Parliamentary Secretary is going to say, but if it is as matter within the administrative capacity of the Ministry of Health, is he going to alter that mischievous circular?

The Chairman: That would appear not to be a matter of legislation.

Mr. Edwards: I am sorry that the intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Southport means that I cannot acquaint the Committee with a matter which I should have thought it would have been convenient for me to have dealt with. I will content myself on this matter of reconditioning by giving one or two general considerations on the aspects of the problem which we have been considering. The first thing I should like to make clear is that it is quite certain that the rural and urban problems cannot be separated in the way they were under the prewar laws. We had, therefore, in considering this matter, to bear in mind not only the Hobhouse Report on Rural Housing and the report of the Scottish Advisory Committee on Modernising our Homes, but also the Silkin Report on Conversion. At the appropriate time, my right hon. Friend will give to the House the results of this consideration, which apparently I cannot now give.
I will now turn to a matter on which there has been a good deal of comment, namely, the question of the control of the distribution of building materials. We have action in hand to strengthen the control over the distribution of building materials. The W.B.A. scheme, instituted last year, served a useful purpose, but with the passage of time, it has, I think, become subject to abuse. It is possible, with the increased output of many materials, to relinquish control over their distribution, and a revision of the present scheme is now in hand, being confined to a relatively small list of items.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: On a point of Order. It was quite clearly laid down, as I am sure you realise, Major Milner, that we should discuss the Ministry of Health Vote and the Ministry of Labour Vote,


and we specifically did not put down the Ministry of Works. There is no doubt that W.B.A. permits and details of this nature are matters for the Ministry of Works, and, as such, are outside the strict confines of this Debate.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members opposite were asking for information, which apparently they do not now want. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, specifically referred to the Minister of Health as being responsible for the coordination of the various Departments concerned with housing. We were asked a number of questions on what we were doing to see to it that the material had reached the sites, and 50 per cent. of the speeches which were made by hon. Members opposite had no meaning unless they referred to the arrival of materials in time.

Hon. Members: Speech.

The Chairman: It seems to me that when we are dealing with policy the question of consultation or co-ordination with other Ministers should be in Order as coming within the administrative purview of the Minister of Health.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Mr. R. S. Hudson rose——

The Chairman: Having regard to the shortness of time, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Debate to proceed unless he has some fresh point to make.

Mr. Edwards: The revised scheme has been considered and discussed in principle by the Minister of Works and representatives of the various interests concerned, the manufacturers, merchants and builders, and has been welcomed by them. Today a meeting was held with representatives of the various bodies. Besides tightening control over the distribution—and I ask the Committee to appreciate that this does mean tightening, although the list may be smaller than before—our regional officers, in conjunction with those of the Ministry of Works, are now affording more help to contractors to secure supplies of those things of which they may be urgently in need. We hope that these two things together may effect an improvement in the present schemes which, I admit, have not been working as well as they should, and which have been abused. We hope

we shall stop some of the holes through which materials have been diverted, and which labour has followed to jobs which are outside the law. I am sure that we can reckon on the co-operation of everybody in this matter.
I would like to say a few words on the subject of building labour. The aim has been to get something like 60 per cent. of the total building labour force employed on housing work of all kinds. The total labour force in the building industry has practically reached the prewar level, but a substantial—although, I am glad to say, dwindling—number of men is still engaged in the repair of bomb-damaged premises. The latest figure of the numbers employed on new permanent houses is 236,500, and we hope to see that figure grow as work on the other side is reduced. Apart from the total labour force engaged on new houses, I admit that there is a lack of balance in the trades as they are now represented. Although I cannot elaborate the point in any detail tonight, I believe it would be no exaggeration to say that the greatest limiting factor in the completion of houses at the present time is the disproportionate number of bricklayers. A correspondent in "The Times" some time ago talked about "the battle of the bulge" in relation to housing. His bulge was the wrong one. The real bulge is that represented by the comparatively small bricklaying force. In percentage figures it may not be important, but it is fundamental to the work which follows. This is a point to which attention must be given. We are trying, by way of improving output in our training schemes and in every way open to us, to get more bricklayers on the job—to some extent, if bricklayers worked faster we should achieve the same result—so that we may tackle this lack of balance in our housing programme.
I would like to refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Gentleman for Southport (Mr. R. S. Hudson), who intervened so disastrously in the. Debate. I was amazed at the statistical aberrations of the right hon. Gentleman. If ever there was a person who was "a snapper-up of unconsidered trifles," it is the right hon. Gentleman. He combines, in his massive self, most extraordinary qualities. He has the manners of Worzel Gummidge. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who is he?"] Hon. Members opposite who have any children


will know who Worzel Gummidge is. Perhaps I may be permitted to explain that Worzel Gummidge is a scarecrow; he has a turnip's head, and he is singularly stupid and very, very rude. To come really to grips with the right hon. Gentleman, he made great play about the figures relating to the U.S.A. I will not follow him in all those figures; I will just read a sentence or two from the message from the President of the United States to Congress, dated 30th June, 1947, which, I hope, will settle the point. The President said:
The progress in housing has not kept pace with progress in other fields. Private industry has not done and cannot do the whole job without Government aid. Much has been achieved with the methods heretofore authorised by the Congress. But they are far from adequate. In no part of our national life is there more urgent need for constructive legislation at this time. I sincerely trust that that Congress will not end this session without meeting the problem squarely.
Whatever the right hon. Gentleman thinks, the President does not think that housing progress has been comparable with work in other fields.
Next, the right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that we were underestimating the magnitude of the housing problem. He did not quote any references. This was one of the allegations which he made, and he said that we were doing something very wrong because we were suggesting that the magnitude of the first part of the problem was 750,000. This was the figure to which he took exception. I do not think that we have said anything more than was in the Coalition White Paper on this matter. This was as follows:
The Government's first objective is to afford a separate dwelling for every family which desires to have one. For this purpose, it is estimated that some three quarters of a million dwellings are needed.
It goes on to say that the second objective is to provide for the rapid completion of slum clearance and over-crowding. All I am saying is that the first objective laid down by the Coalition Government was the provision of a separate dwelling for each family, and if we say we have gone whatever distance—I am not now dealing with figures—along that road, we are quite entitled to regard that as our first objective; certainly no one on this side of the Committee has underestimated the magnitude of the long-term task which we have in front of us.
The right hon. Gentleman also made play with a number of figures. If there is a difference of opinion about the 400,000 which is the figure quoted, it is to be found, I think, in the difference between the Great Britain figures and those for England and Wales. I believe we had in fact a storm in a teacup over that point, partly due to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had not read the footnote. The right hon. Gentleman's claim is the most extraordinary one that if the Tories had been in power they would have built 60,000 more houses than in fact we have built. This he implied, would have been done with a lower manpower because, he said, the industry was over-manned. Will he tell me from where he would get his materials? Would he have taken the timber that was being used for war damage repairs, or what? He cannot ride off on that. He has got to demonstrate that he could, in fact, have used materials which were available.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Is the hon. Gentleman asking me a question?

Mr. Edwards: Yes.

Mr. Hudson: The answer will be very brief. We would have had 80,000 houses under construction instead of 235,000. The difference represents a serious waste in building materials tied up in half finished houses.

Mr. Edwards: That is the most extraordinary statement I have heard for a long time. I suppose the right hon. Gentleman would conjure up the wood in the same manner as he conjures up his arguments.

Mr. Hudson: No.

Mr. Edwards: I want now to pin the Opposition down to a most important point. I am glad to see present the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon (Mr. Willink). He will recollect, when speaking for the Coalition Government with a very real sense of the responsibility attaching to his office, if I may say so, stating that the vast majority of houses in the two years following the war would necessarily be built by local authorities.

Mr. Willink: I do not think that the word "vast" was in the sentence. It was "great majority."

Mr. Edwards: If the right hon. Gentleman will look up the quotation, he will find that the term "vast majority" is in it. My right hon. Friend asked the Opposition Front Bench on a number of occasions to say whether they stood by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement or not, and so far no one speaking for the Opposition has given any answer to that question. This is important, not only because the country is entitled to know what the official Opposition view is, but it is equally important because the standing of the Conservative Party in the eyes of the local authorities is steadily going down. Every time they go into the country they disparage the work done by local authorities and by implication the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Croydon has been disowned by his party. If he

is not, why does not someone in authority put the back bench boys in their places?

This is in some ways the most serious issue. Hon. Members on the other side have thought that they could say, "No controls, no limit, to the number of houses which can be built." They think that they can draw their strength through negation, but they are quite wrong. The country expects something different from His Majesty's Opposition. It expects an alternative and that has not been forthcoming. I submit that nothing that has been said today really does damage to our record in this matter.

Mr. Marples: I beg to move, "That Item Class V, Vote I, Ministry of Health, be reduced by £5."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 258.

Division No. 341.]
AYES.
[9.59 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Gridley, Sir A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Grimston, R. V.
Pickthorn, K.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Pitman, I. J.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hogg, Hon Q.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Beechman, N. A.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, Stanley


Birch, Nigel
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Bower, N.
Hurd, A.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Raikes, H. V


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Keeling, E. H
Rayner, Brig. R.


Bromley Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Lambert, Hon. G
Roberts, H. (Handswroth)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Bullock, Capt. M
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A H
Ropner, Col. L


Butcher, H. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A T.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Carson, E.
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Sanderson, Sir F.


Challen, C.
Linstead, H. N.
Stanley, Rt Hon. O


Channon, H.
Low, Brig. A. R. W
Stoddart-Scott, Col M.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, H. G (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)
Taylor C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crowder, Capt. John E
Macmillan, Rt Hon. Harold (Bromley)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Darling, Sir W. Y
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P (Monmouth)


Davidson, Viscountess
Manningham-Buller, R. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marples, A. E.
Touche, G. C.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V G. (Penrith)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Turton, R. H.


Drewe, C.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Mai. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maude, J. C.
Walker-Smith, D.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A
Mellor, Sir J.
Ward, Hon. G. R


Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter
Molson, A. H. E.
Watt, Sir G. S Harvie.


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fox, Sir G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fraser, H. C P. (Stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D P M
Nicholson, G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Nield B (Chester)
Willink, Rt. Hon. H. U.


Gammans, L. D
Noble, Comdr. A. H P.



George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A
Peake, Rt. Hon. O
Major Conant and




Major Ramsay.




NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Benson, G.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Baird, J.
Beswick, F.


Allen, A. C (Bosworth)
Balfour, A.
Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Barstow, P. G.
Bing, G. H. C.


Alpass, J H.
Barton, C.
Binns, J.


Attewell, H C.
Battley, J. R.
Blackburn, A. R.


Austin, H. Lewis
Bechervaise, A. E.
Blenkinsop, A.


Ayles, W. H.
Belcher, J. W.
Blyton, W. R




Boardman, H.
Hicks G
Reeves, J.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Holman, P.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
House, G.
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Hoy, J.
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Rogers, G. H. R.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hughes, H. D. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Brown, George (Belper)
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Scollan, T.


Bruce, Major D. W. T.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scott-Elliot, W


Buchanan, G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Segal, Dr. S.


Burden, T. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Burke, W. A.
Janner, B.
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Shurmer, P.


Byers, Frank
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Castle, Mrs. B. A
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Chamberlain, R. A.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Simmons, C. J


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W.
Skeffington, A. M.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Cobb, F. A.
Key, C. W.
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cocks, F. S.
Kinley, J.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Coldrick, W.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)


Collick, P.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Snow, Capt. J W


Collindridge, F.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Solley, L. J.


Collins, V. J.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R W


Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Levy, B. W.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Sparks, J. A


Corvedale, Viscount
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Stamford, W.


Crawley, A
Lindgren, G. S.
Steele, T.


Crossman, R. H. S.
Lipson, D. L.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Daggar, G.
Longden, F.
Stross, Dr. B.


Daines, P.
McAdam, W.
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McAllister, G.
Swingler, S.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McEntee, V. La T.
Sylvester, G. O


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McKay, J (Wallsend)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Deer, G.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Diamond, J.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dodds, N. N
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Donovan, T.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Marquand, H A.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Thurtle, Ernest


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mathers, G.
Tiffany, S


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Timmons, J


Edelman, M.
Messer, F.
Titterington, M. F.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Tolley, L.


Edwards, N (Caerphilly)
Mikardo, Ian
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mitchison, G. R
Turner-Samuels, M


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Monslow, W
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Ewart, R.
Moody, A. S.
Viant, S. P.


Farthing, W. J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Walkden, E


Fernyhough, E.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Walker, G. H.


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Foot, M. M.
Mort, D. L.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Moyle, A.
Weitzman, D.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Naylor, T. E
Wells, P. L. (Faversham)


Gallacher, W.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
West, D. G


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oldfield, W. H.
Wigg, Col. G. E


Goodrich, H. E.
Oliver, G. H
Wilkes, L.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A (Wakefield)
Paget, R. T.
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, Wili T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, J. (Kelvingrove)


Grey, C F
Pargiter, G A
Williams, Rt. Hon. T (Don Valley)


Grierson, E.
Parker, J.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, B. T.
Willis, E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J (Llanelly)
Paton, J (Norwich)
Wills, Mrs. E A.


Gunter, R J
Pearson, A.
Wilson, J. H.


Guy, W. H
Peart, Thomas F.
Woods, G. S


Hall, W G.
Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Wyatt, W.


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Yates, V. F.


Hardy, E. A.
Pritt, D. N.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Randall, H. E.
Zilliacus, K


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Ranger, J



Herbison, Miss M
Rankin, J
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hewitson, Captain M.
Rees-Williams, D. R.
Mr. Hannan and Mr. Popplewell.


Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

It being after Ten o'Clock, and objection being taken to further Proceeding,

The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — COMPANIES BILL [Lords].

Considered in Committee (on recommittal). [Progress, 25th, July.]

[Mr. HUBERT BEAUMONT in the Chair]

CLAUSE 46.—(Appointment and powers of inspectors to investigate ownership of company.)

Amendment proposed, in page 43, line 18, at end, insert:
(3) Where an application for an investigation under this Section with respect to particular shares or debentures of a company is made to the Board of Trade by members of the company, and the number of applicants or the amount of the shares held by them is not less than that required for an application for the appointment of an inspector under Section one hundred and thirty-five of the principal Act, the Board of Trade shall appoint an inspector to conduct the investigation, unless they are satisfied that the application is vexatious, and the inspector's appointment shall not exclude from the scope of his investigation any matter which the application seeks to have included therein, except in so far as the Board of Trade are satisfied that it is unreasonable for that matter to be investigated."—[Sir Stafford Cripps.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: When the Committee came to the end of its Business at 4 o'clock on Friday last, I had been speaking rather critically about the Government's new Amendment dealing with the question of nominee shareholders, I am sure the Committee is well aware of the fact that there is nothing illegal in my being on a share register, holding shares in the name of some undisclosed person. I first of all challenged that conception as being an honest and clean one for a public company. I feel that on the whole, the people who do hold shares as nominees are very likely to be doing it for some reason or motive which is not disclosed, and not disclosed for some purpose. I feel that we should tonight make the Government withdraw the new Subsection that has been moved.
This proposal provides that if 10 per cent. of the shareholders ask the Board of Trade to have an inquiry into a certain nominee shareholding, then the Board of Trade will carry that out unless it is satisfied that the inquiry is a vexatious one. Anybody who has had any experience of big companies knows perfectly well

that to organise 10 per cent. of the shareholders of any company is a very difficult thing to do, and as I was saying on Friday—I rather used it as a guess; I am not quite sure whether my facts are right, but I have been told on very good authority—only about 5 per cent. of the shares of that famous firm, Carreras—Black Cat cigarettes and so on—are owned by the Baron family and the rest are owned by lots of other people. Nevertheless, I am also told—I give this in good faith—that that 5 per cent. shareholding in the hands of the one family, is sufficient to keep control of the policy of that company. The Board of Trade talks about 10 per cent. of the shareholding getting together. I, first of all, submit to the Minister that it is almost an impossibility to organise 10 per cent. of the shareholders in any big company. Therefore, the offer the Government are making to meet the position in this case is one that will not satisfy me, and I do not think it will satisfy any of my hon. Friends.
The Government were beaten in the Committee upstairs, not on this proposal but on the same general idea in relation to nominee shareholdings. A similar opinion exists today. I hope it is not a party matter. In the Standing Committee I think the Conservative Members voted for the Government not because the Government put forward any reason but presumably because they felt things might as well stay as they are. The allegation made by the President of the Board of Trade, and made also, I think, by the Lord Chancellor in another place and by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, was that it was impossible to stop men who were determined to break the law in this respect because they would always get round it. We legislate a lot and we know that there are always people who are liable to try to break the law and who often succeed. Everybody has to make an Income Tax Return. In other words, he has to disclose to the Inland Revenue authorities every source of his income. We have had Income Tax law for about 100 years, and every year we find that the Chancellor comes along with proposals to close loopholes discovered in the course of earlier experience.
10.15 P.m.
I, therefore, argue that it is no excuse to say that this is too difficult and that


there will be people clever enough, wrong minded enough, and anti-social enough to get round provisions relating to nominee shareholdings. That is not a good reason for not legislating. To my mind that is really quite unjustifiable. I said on Friday last that we do not like people murdering one another in this country, and we have a law that any person who is found guilty of murdering somebody else is hanged. Nevertheless, that does not stop murders being committed. The penalty is a pretty severe one, as severe as any I can think of at the moment, but it does not seem to be a big deterrent to a person who is out to murder somebody else. Then there is a law that, if you find something in the street, you can be found guilty of stealing by finding. That seems impossible to enforce but, nevertheless, it is the law. I am suggesting that here we have the register of the company, a copy of which is supplied to the Registrar of Companies each year, and every person who has his name on that share register must surely know whether he owns those shares beneficially or not.
I am certain that every hon. Member of this Committee knows perfectly well that either he owns the shares in his own name on the register or that he does not. He may be holding them as a trustee for somebody else; all the same, he has to disclose in whose interests he is holding those shares. I should impose a penalty of 10 years' imprisonment on any shareholder who did not disclose the names and interests of any beneficial holding for which he was a nominee. In fact I see no reason at all for having nominee shareholders. Suppose I want to find out who owns the shares in a certain company, am I to be told by the President of the Board of Trade or his officers that my request for an inquiry is a vexatious one? Have I to tell them why I want it?
This is a serious national problem and I think this Committee should take it seriously. We do not know now whether American capital dominates and controls our national industries. How on earth can any hon. Member opposite or on this side of the Committee explain to me whether, if you find on a share register as supplied to Somerset House, the Guaranty Trust Company of New York, for instance, holding a certain number of shares, they are holding them for American shareholders which is my guess,

and are merely their nominees? Everybody in this Committee would be concerned if we found one day perhaps that our armaments industry was owned and controlled by foreign capital. We had some suspicions in the war before this one, and in the last one, about the control that I.G. Farben and other international companies had. Some really shady evidence came to light in the early part of this war and, after the previous war, I seem to remember an inquiry being set up by M. Briand which showed that a certain place in France, where there was production of iron ore, was used by the Germans and French in keeping the war going and was never bombed by the other country when the one was in occupation. That was discovered by a senatorial inquiry in France after the previous war, about 1931.
This is the kind of way in which foreign control of industries in this country can be hidden from everyone, from the Government, from other shareholders in the concern, from the workers in the concern, and from men and women who in the next war will lay down their lives because this kind of thing has been going on. There is a very much bigger risk than appears on the face of it. The Government's only answer is the difficulty of enforcing the law. I think the penalty should be 10 years' imprisonment. All these technical difficulties could be got over. I am not at all impressed, after reading last Friday's Debate, by the difficulties which the Government are trying to put up against abolishing nominee shareholders. I feel strongly about this. Here is a matter on which the Government should think again. They should realise that there is a good deal of feeling, especially on this side of the Committee, that they have come to a wrong decision in trying to leave things as they are. There was a very interesting article on the subject in the "New Statesman" by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) last Friday, which all hon. Members should read. I am sorry if hon. Members opposite have not read it; they should do so, as they will find it very interesting. I ask the Committee, particularly hon. Members on this side, to listen to the reasons given from the Front Bench why this thing cannot be done, and to see if they are satisfied. If not, I ask my hon. Friends to oppose the Government on this Amendment.

Mr. Brendan Bracken: The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is under the illusion that my right hon. and hon. Friends wish to preserve the impenetrable mysteries of some nominee shareholders. I can assure him that he is altogether wrong. There was a time when we really believed it was possible to fulfil the original recommendations of the Cohen Report, and were it not for the fact that it was proved to be impossible, we would very much have liked to pass an enforceable law to deal with the abuses of the nominee system. I dare say the hon. Member is right in saying that there are a number of foreigners who hold shares in British companies. Whether that is a bad thing or not is open to question. At the moment we do not seem to be bitterly resisting the importation of American capital into this country. If one is to pass a law, it must be a law which will enable the ordinary citizen to know where he is in relation to the five closely printed pages dealing with the question of nominees which appeared in the original Bill. I am not a lawyer. I do not know if the hon. Member, with his superior legal qualities, can really understand the meaning of those five printed pages, but I do not think that most Members of the Committee could possibly do so. We must remember that people would be subjected to very severe penalties, either by fine or imprisonment, for not fulfilling something beyond the capacity of anything other than a really well-fee'd Chancery "silk."
The hon. Member has given us his point of view on the practicability of carrying out the recommendation of the Cohen Report. We also have the advantage of the Lord Chancellor's opinion. It must be remembered that the Lord Chancellor started out originally with the intention of finding a form of words which could give practical effect to the recommendations of the Cohen Committee, but he confessed in another place that having put a wet towel round his head, and spent a great deal of time on the problem, he could find no solution. He said it was impossible to draft such a law. Lord Simonds, who is certainly one of the greatest commercial lawyers, agreed with the Lord Chancellor, and the President of the Board of Trade, who is no mean commercial lawyer, agreed with both. I do not think I am incorrect when I say that most of the eminent practising accountants

and commercial lawyers support the President of the Board of Trade and the Lord Chancellor. In their view it is utterly impossible to produce an enforceable law which will fulfil the recommendations of the Cohen Committee.

Mr. Bowles: I do not find that tip-top K.C's are necessarily the best draftsman of Clauses of Bills. It is a very specialised job, and I do not think that my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade pretends to be a draftsman, any more than does the Lord Chancellor or Lord Simonds.

Mr. Bracken: I am not making any claim for the Lord Chancellor or for Lord Simonds as a draftsman and I would certainly not have the hardihood to make such a statement in respect of the President of the Board of Trade. I dare say that in their day, possibly, all these eminent lawyers have differed from the draftsmen of Measures passed in this House. I am now speaking of their reputation as commercial lawyers, and I am also touching on the coincidence that most of the accountancy profession, and lawyers who deal with commercial matters, and all reputable business men, equally agree with the President of the Board of Trade. Sometimes the President may feel that he is misunderstood by what are called business tycoons, but I can assure him that on this occasion, they are bound to be in melancholy agreement with his view that it is impossible to do what the hon. Member for Nuneaton wants us to do. So I say to the hon. Member, in no party spirit—as he rightly says there is no party matter here—perhaps he will forgive us for disagreeing with him on this occasion.
10.30 p.m.
Another practical point upon which I should like to touch is that, apart from the burden which the nominee Clauses which have been struck out of the original Bill, would have laid upon many of our innocent fellow citizens, who know nothing of company law, heavy burdens would also have been laid upon important sections of the community if the Government had not had such wise second thoughts. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the real responsibility, the impossible responsibility that would have rested upon thousands of trustees; who are gentleman who perform a most ungrateful task. Unlike lawyers and accoun-


tants, they are not remunerated. There are many circumstances arising in which trustees might have put themselves in a position in which they might have received heavy punishment for quite unconscious breaches of the law, if the original Clauses had remained in the Bill.
There is another point I wish to put to the Committee. Today most businesses are understaffed. We are constantly being told by the Minister that it is impossible to get staff, that it is impossible to get typists, and that even Government Departments have to ration themselves in this matter. What would be the effect of the Bill on thousands of office staffs today? It has been said that it is possible to go to Bush House and place before the Registrar a list of shareholders. With that I quite agree, but there are thousands of companies, with lists of shareholders running into 10,000 or 20,000. I know of one company which has over 200,000 shareholders. Just think of the burden on the hard-working officials and staff of the Board of Trade who would have to discover whether one of these shareholders had broken the law.

Mr. Bowles: I should like to see the onus placed on the shareholder and not on the secretary of the company. I was a trustee and I believe that I still am.

Mr. Bracken: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the Board of Trade officials should make no attempt to enforce the law? If we leave it to any citizen of the country to do what should be done, with Government Departments making no attempt to fulfil the law, what state shall we be in? The President of the Board of Trade has offered, I submit, the best practicable working solution to this problem. It is not perfect, but I am sure that he and his officials will really take these powers with the intention of working them, and on this occasion I ask the Committee to support the right hon. Gentleman. I can see no alternative and in my humble way I honestly believe these powers will be thoroughly effective in carrying out what I am sure are the wishes of the House.

Mr. John Lewis: Those hon. Members who were present at the Debate on Friday last will presume that I was not at one with the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles). This is not the case. I join with him in that if this

proposal could be implemented every hon. Member would want to see it in the Bill Unfortunately, Clause 69 was inserted during the Committee stage upstairs, when I was away ill. When this Bill goes on the Statute Book, the obligation will then be upon the Board of Trade to enforce it, and all the arguments in the Committee stage by the hon. Member did not deal with whether it would be possible to enforce this particular Clause. I should have liked to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton how he proposed to see that this should be effected.

Mr. Bowles: All right. I went to Somerset House last week to inspect the names of shareholders in a company. There is no secret about it; it was the Equity Trust Company of New York. I am perfectly certain they are holding shares on behalf of somebody else. Under the procedure I should report to the Director of Public Prosecutions that these people have not disclosed the shares held as nominees and I should lay information.

Mr. Lewis: No one is denying that the situation is complicated. Since the inception of the principle of limited liability as a workable basis for collaborative investment it has been established that industrial expansion must by its very nature, lead to a complex system of inter-financial relationships. These have grown up over many years and what my hon. Friends must realise is that it is not easy to sort them out, but it does not mean necessarily that where it is difficult to ascertain without investigation the actual beneficial owners of an undertaking that there is something shady in the administration of the affairs of that company.
I propose to give some further practical examples as to the inoperative nature of Clause 69. I will not take up time by dilating upon the difficulties of implementing it which were mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade on Friday. Take the example of a woman whose husband dies leaving her £1,000. She may wish to make an investment of that £1,000, and if I were asked to advise her I would refer her to a reputable investment trust to make that investment on her behalf. She may be quite incapable of deciding herself the best investment to make in her own interests. Another example is that of companies which run pension funds. Very often one


finds that 5 per cent. is deducted from the wages of every worker, and the company adds a further 5 per cent. to the fund. Usually there are two trustees chosen from among the employers and two from the workers. The money is invested by the trustees in a number of companies. There may be 10,000 workers in this company's fund. The trustees may invest that sum of money in one hundred different companies. If hon. Members look at Clause 69 it will be seen that there is provision for inclusion in the register of members of the names and addresses of all persons who are beneficial owners in any or all of the shares set down in the name of the registered owner. That means that there would have to be a million insertions in the registers of these companies in which the trustees had invested in order to implement this Clause, as every worker would be a beneficial owner of part of the trustees. No one will suggest that this is a practical proposition.

Mr. Scollan: On the question of superannuation, and the investment of companies' pension funds, no reputable firm invests in anything other than Government stock.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, but I cannot accept that. Most reputable organisations, including Co-operative societies, make investments in ordinary commercial stocks.

Mr. Scollan: May. I inform the hon. Member that there is no such thing as a Co-operative society which invests its superannuation fund in anything but Government stock.

Mr. Lewis: I do not want to go into details——

Mr. Scollan: You cannot.

Mr. Lewis: I must say that I have investigated the position, and the hon. Member will find that I am quite right.

Mr. Scollan: You are not.

Mr. Lewis: I shall leave that point and deal with another. I believe the hon. Member will agree that many investments are made by banks as nominees. People have not always the time to arrange their own investments. It is quite a common thing for a person having money he wishes to invest to ring up a

bank and to ask the manager to purchase shares. On his behalf the shares are purchased, through the bank's nominee company, and the customer's account is debited. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I am sure the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) will agree with that. Would he say that in every case of that kind it should be necessary for the bank to register who are the beneficent holders of the shares?

Mr. Bowles: The customer could have the shares transferred to him direct.

Mr. Lewis: I maintain that it is better to have no legislation at all than to have half-baked legislation—[Interruption.] I want to assure those of my hon. Friends who hold the view that beneficial ownership should be disclosed that I am with them 100 per cent. in their desire. But destructive criticism will get us nowhere. What we need is' a practical proposal as to how it can be effected, and that has not been forthcoming. In the absence of any such proposal, the Clause must be deleted from the Bill and we must rely upon the other safeguards which remain.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Member has made a good working class speech. I have never heard anything in my life like some of the arguments put forward tonight. We have a law against forgery. Every man in this House can write, but that does not mean that because people can write we have a policeman waiting to see why they are writing, that they do not commit forgery. If anyone commits forgery, if it is a cheque, the bank reports the matter to the police and the police take steps to bring the offender to court. A man who has his house burgled brings the matter to the attention of the police and the police go after the burglar. But what is suggested in some directions is tantamount to saying that you are going to make the police go round the whole country to see if there are any burglars.
The hon. Member says that it is an offence to have a nominee shareholder hiding real shareholders. Either it is an offence, or it is not an offence. If it is an offence, say it is an offence, and say that it is punishable by this, that or the other thing. It is not for the President of the Board of Trade to go examining all


this evidence. But the hon. Member says that if someone connected with the company, or interested in it, makes an inquiry and is convinced that an offence has been committed, he will report it to the President of the Board of Trade. What the Members of this Committee have to face is the one question—is this something that is undesirable, is it an offence? All right; put in the Act that it is an offence and that anyone who commits it will be punished accordingly. Leave it to those who are interested in a particular business to watch out, and if they find anyone committing a particular offence, be it a bank, in connection with a forgery, or a man at whose house there has been a burglary, let it be reported to the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Board of Trade—[Interruption.] It is a responsible business from the Tory point of view but it is not a responsible business from the working man's point of view, and we will protect the workers.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I hope that we are going to discuss this matter calmly and certainly without prejudice. The question seems to me to be: what is the practical issue here? It is that if the system of nominees has resulted in dishonesty or malpractices, and you can find a remedy for it, then it is right that it should be done away with, or at all events, carefully restricted. If, on the other hand, it is of such a nature that you cannot effectively remedy what is said to be objectionable, and you are only going to inflict upon honest staffs an unjustifiable burden and give the companies staffs, especially under present difficulties, a prodigous amount of work, then I do not think the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) should be adopted. I was very interested in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Bowles) said about the American company he was quoting. His complaint, as I understood it, was that you might have a body of American investors or financiers who come to this country to start or invest in a business. I want to ask him this question: does he disagree with Americans doing that, assuming there is no improper motive? Or does he object to American capital coming into this country at all to be invested in companies or otherwise? If he says there is anything wrong about such a procedure, will he tell us what it

is? If the hon. Member had come to this House and made a disclosure that that particular American company he mentioned had been indulging in fraudulent practices or had wrongful, motives, or that there was a likelihood of a suspicion or objection arising against the company or its proceedings, that would be an entirely different matter. He has not done so.

Mr. Bowles: Mr. Bowles rose——

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Let me develop the point. Suppose there was some ground for suspicion or some reason to inquire into the position of that particular company. It seems to me that the Amendment which the President of the Board of Trade is submitting is the very machinery that is designed to cover and will cover that case precisely. All that would have to be done would be this. You would have to go to the Board of Trade and say: I have some reasonable ground for saying that there is, or I suspect on good grounds that there is, a state of affairs going on in connection with this particular company or their shareholdings which is not right and which should be investigated. Thereupon, the Board- of Trade has the fullest possible powers to, and indeed must, inquire into that matter. So that at all events, as far as that case goes, there is nothing to be gained by the disclosure of nominees. Assuming, however, a case where there is nothing wrong, then there is no reason why some trustee or some other person should not be holding the shares as a nominee without what is called the "beneficial owner" being disclosed.

Mr. Bowles: If my hon. and learned Friend will allow me, my point is this: I am suspicious that the Scotch whisky distillers in this country are controlled by Americans. I have tried to find out the details but I have not been able to; but they are the people who have control, and if they can persuade the Government what is the price at which Scotch whisky, which is a staple export, can only be sold in the United States, then I want to know exactly what the American holding is.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: My hon. Friend does not improve his case by that point at all; he is not adding anything of substance to it. All you have to do to ascertain if there are Americans concerned is to investigate the matter, and the Presi-


dent of the Board of Trade has full power in this Amendment to do that. I say to my hon. Friend that this question of nominees does not carry his point any further at all. I always thought that the reason for wanting a disclosure of nominees was that the co-adventurer in a business concern should know who his associates in the business were, or who was controlling the company. It has been shown by the most expert and experienced evidence that that is just where you get defeated if you are in fact dealing with dishonest persons who do not intend to be revealed because of some wrongful motive. That is obviously not wanted in the case of the ordinary trustee who is perfectly honest and who is acting on behalf of some estate. There is no point in having the information there. The mere fact that the Board of Trade might get to know who the fortunate beneficiary is does not matter one iota. That is not the sort of thing that is wanted at all.

Dr. Morgan: Will the hon. and learned Member allow me?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: No, I will not. It has been found time and time again, that where one is dealing with these decent straightforward people one gets all the information that is wanted. The matters being complained of are really being exaggerated out of all proportion with the facts. Out of no more than 72,456 holdings only 6 per cent. were shown to be unidentified. And that does not mean even that that proportion consists entirely of persons with wrongful motives for not wanting disclosure. That is important in connection with this provision to abolish the nominee system. I repeat, the whole of the shareholding in this particular respect, with the exception of this 6 per cent., under the present arrangement, was completely identified. Therefore, in my submission this matter has been greatly exaggerated.
The only question is whether in this portion of about 6 per cent there are cases which ought to be dealt with by means of the proposed disclosure. It has been proved over and over again by eminent accountants and people greatly experienced in company work, that this is a thing which cannot be dealt with, because the people you want to track always find some means of evading the disclosure. If that is the case, what will be the result?

There will only be a disclosure in the case of honest people. There are 180,000 companies in this country, and there are thousands upon thousands of shareholding people. Are we going to impose upon these people the useless task of making these disclosures, and upon the companies the prodigious task of dealing with the register under those changed circumstances? If that is proposed I would ask again, what benefit is obtained from it? There is merely going to be information about honest people which will be of no practical use whatever.
There is a further point which I should like to put to my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade. It looks as if it is suggested that the Amendment only enables an inquiry to be made if 10 per cent. of the shareholding or 200 of the shareholders ask for such an inquiry. The Board of Trade can agree to it then, provided it is not vexatious. I want to ask if that is so what has the proportion of capital or members to do with that? If it is vexatious, then the application ought not to be allowed, and if it is not vexatious, the question of the shareholders' strength supporting the application ought to have nothing to do with the matter at all. It seems to me if that is the rule, then as my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton pointed out in connection with the firm of Carreras, there might be a proportion of the shareholding which does not amount to 10 per cent., where although there may be very solid reasons for asking the Board of Trade to make an inquiry, they are prevented from so doing merely because they cannot muster the number of persons or shares required.
There is one final point. The hon. Member says he wants to know who are the beneficial owners of these shares—but would he give us a definition of "beneficial owners"? Does he mean that it must be, for instance, what the Bill of Sales Act calls the "true owner"—which he knows is the term used in the case of a bill of sale? What precisely does the term "beneficial owner" mean in this context? A mortgagee or trustee may be a "beneficial owner," and yet that would not satisfy my hon. Friend at all, because the very man that he wants to get at may use that very device in order to prevent the required information


being given. He has given the House no explanation of this important point. As I have said, this is a matter which ought not to be looked at with prejudice. I can understand Members on this side having the feeling that there are certain dishonest directors who have taken advantage of "inside" knowledge. That may be so in certain cases, but there is very much more in this matter than that.

Mr. Wyatt: The hon. Member said a little while ago that he had one final point. Can he tell us how many subsections that final point has?

Mr. Turner-Samuels: My submission, therefore, is that the enormous amount of work that this would involve is far beyond any advantage that could possibly be from it.

11.0 p.m.

Major Bruce: This Amendment puts many Members on this side in a rather unfortunate position. On its own merits, the first Amendment on the Paper is a perfectly good one which I myself am prepared to support. It does strengthen the powers of inspection in a way that many of us on both sides of the Committee agree with, therefore, there is little between us on that. But we are discussing with this Amendment the whole question of Clause 69. Here again I am bound to disappoint some of my Friends by saying immediately that I do not think that Clause 69 is either a basis for, or a satisfactory way of dealing with, the whole question of nominee shareholders.
If I had my way, I would prefer to see Clauses 57 to 62 of the original Bill retained—however unworkable they may have seemed. It is common ground on both sides of the Committee that if a satisfactory method could be devised which was enforceable in law whereby nominee shareholders could be required to disclose their interests, then there would be little difficulty in the matter. The issue which rests between us is the question of practicability. I want to demonstrate how far both sides of the Committee have got together. In the original Cohen Committee Report there were set out in the recommendations some fair definition of what, in fact, were beneficial ownerships. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the Debate on Friday, and to some extent

in the Committee upstairs, gave several other instances which tended to vitiate the effect of the draft clauses as set out in the Cohen Report, and I have no doubt that the Lord Chancellor thought of some more. The Cohen Committee, in its report, gave a definition of beneficial ownership, and recommendations were set out in Clause 58 in the original Bill. Given a little ingenuity by the President of the Board of Trade and his legal advisers, I do not think it would have been impossible to provide a definition of what constituted a beneficial owner.
The difficulty lay entirely in the question of enforceability. So far, these principles have been agreed. It has been agreed on both sides that if you can define beneficial ownership, beneficial ownerships should be registered in the register of members by means of a separate subdivision. It is also agreed on both sides that such information, if the registration of it were practicable, would be reproduced in the Joint Stock Companies' Registries in London and Edinburgh. What did both sides agree when they decided that this course, at any rate was practicable? The first thing they decided was that this beneficial ownership, if it could be satisfactorily defined, should be available to the general public. But that does not mean—and no one in the Committee would imagine it—that everyone of the population of 49 millions in this country would immediately be swarming round the registers of the joint stock companies in London and Edinburgh.
In effect and practice, the information would be available to those pepole who want to inquire at the registries. That would include the shareholders and directors of the company and of other companies. It would possibly include the trade union leaders who want to find out the affairs of companies in which they are interested. They would include a certain number of other people who need information for purposes of research, and also the curious persons who might be described by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) as professional agitators. All this is on the assumption that the matter is capable of definition by the President of the Board of Trade, and his advisers, or any other legal adviser of the Government or right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
What have we agreed? We have agreed on a fundamental violation of the privacy of the individual because what we are saying is that where beneficial ownership does in fact occur, then these various interested parties shall be entitled to this information. I suggest we have probably gone the wrong way about it by too slavish an imitation of the recommendations of the Cohen Report. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth is quite correct when he says that the bulk of the legal profession and the bulk of the profession to which I belong have already agreed that the specific recommendations on the Cohen Report are impracticable.
Has it occurred to the President of the Board of Trade that there is another solution to this problem outside the recommendation of the Cohen Report? This is the solution I desire to present to the Committee for its consideration. It is quite clear that if this Committee were disposed to agree in principle to the scheme I outline, it may be possible to benefit that body of legal opinion and public opinion which is concerned. I should have thought it possible—and it would not have violated the sacred conception of privacy—if every registered holder of a share or shares were required on the rendering to him by an interested party of a request in a proper form, which could be drawn up by the President of the Board of Trade—to disclose to that individual whether he was a beneficial owner or not, and if he were not, then who the beneficial owner was in fact, and that the form itself should contain a definition as to what a beneficial owner consisted of; and a time limit should be given for the rendition of that information. The person requiring the information should pay a fee of, say 10s., to the person from whom he requires it, to avoid purely vexatious and frivolous applications.
This seems to me to be a way in which this can be done. After all, the people who get information are the people who want information. They are the very people who would normally look it up in the files at Somerset House. The sole question which arises, therefore, is whether or not it is possible to find a definition of "beneficial ownership." If it is not possible to develop a definition here in this Committee—I do not think this should

defeat the ingenuity of the President of the Board of Trade—for it would be quite impossible otherwise for my right hon. and learned Friend to impose the provisions of Clause 46 of the Bill, because before he can enforce them he has to make up his mind departmentally what "beneficial ownership" consists of and the particular or undesirable things which he wishes to exclude. If he can do this, I say it is capable of being reduced to writing, and if it is capable of being reduced to writing it is capable of being printed on the back of a form in such a way that any person requiring the disclosure and the individual whose shares may be held beneficially or otherwise would both be satisfied—all parties would be satisfied.

Mr. J. Lewis: Mr. J. Lewis rose——

The Deputy-Chairman: Sir Thomas Moore.

Mr. Lewis: I rose on a point of Order.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have already called upon Sir Thomas Moore.

Major Bruce: On a point of Order. I was in the process of performing a normal, customary act in this House of giving way to another hon. Member. Do I understand that I am now debarred from going further?

The Deputy-Chairman: I must apologise to the hon. and gallant Member. I thought he had finished his speech. The hon. Member may continue.

Mr. J. Lewis: Am I to understand from the hon. and gallant Member that if I am the registered owner of shares and one thousand people write to me to disclose beneficial ownership, that I would be legally bound to do so?

Major Bruce: Provided the hon. Member had been paid ten shillings a time by each of the thousand, and if they did that, I think he would find the proceeds of sufficient dimension to compensate him for his trouble. I am putting forward this suggestion in no spirit of frivolity. It might be that in my rather quick rate of diction and probably the legal complexities of my remarks, I may not have carried all hon. Members with me. But the point is quite seriously made and I trust that each hon. Member will consider it as a means of elucidating the problem, because, I readily admit that Clause 69 is not a good Clause, and I


would not like as an accountant to be held partly responsible for putting it on the Statute Book. The onus still lies on the Government to take every step to solve this nominee problem, and I do submit to those who sit on these Benches and the legal luminaries that they ought to examine the method I have outlined with a view to seeing whether or not it is possible to do anything about it in another place.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Now peace has been restored on the opposite side of the Committee, I hope the Committee will bear with me for a few minutes at so hot and late an hour while I refer to an incident which took place in Committee, and which was really the beginning of all this bother. At the same time, I will put forward an argument which I hope will destroy the dislike of certain members for nominee shareholding. Some days ago the hon. Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan) was good enough to give me the advice or warning that he was going to raise the subject in Committee of a company with which I am associated, and also in a slightly dramatic and slightly sensational way he referred to a mysterious lady. I was not on the Committee and his advice or warning was not very helpful. Further, he did not advise me why he was choosing "World's Press News"—although it is attracting attention for other reasons—and the companies with which I was associated, to make these analytical studies at Somerset House.
It really does not matter very much because there is nothing to be ashamed of, or anything to be concealed; but as certain newspapers have since taken up his remarks and made some unwise and unjustified comments on them, I feel that in ordinary justice to myself and my colleagues I should make these few words of explanation. It is just like a pebble thrown into a pond. It always makes ripples. Therefore the insinuations inferred by the hon. Gentleman may well leave doubts in the minds of Members which I think I should remove. I thought you were poised on the ball of your foot Mr. Deputy-Chairman, and I was wondering what Rule I had disregarded.

11.15 p.m.

The Deputy-Chairman: I am wondering how far what the hon. and gallant Gentle-

man is saying has relation to the Amendment.

Sir T. Moore: The Amendment describes how the nominee shareholder is to be done away with. The hon. Member for South Cardiff introduced this Amendment in Committee, which has now been reversed by the President of the Board of Trade. That is my point, and I will proceed to demonstrate that the basis on which the hon. Member for South Cardiff made his charges is without foundation. The company referred to, the "World's Press News," has 1,700-odd shares, one-fifth of which are held by the directors and four-fifths held by another company which the hon. Member mentioned in the course of this investigation—the Weymouth Press, brought into existence to publish certain journals irrespective of the "World's Press News." The Weymouth Press which was referred to and was the basis of this charge, is entirely owned by Hatchards Associated Industries with which this charge is now definitely associated. The hon. Member stated that certain people, including a mysterious lady held certain shares.

The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Member is now making a detailed account of the history of this affair; I understand he was arguing on the Amendment, and he should now come down to his argument.

Sir T. Moore: I am trying to make it clear that the hon. Member for South Cardiff stated there was a mysterious lady who was a nominee shareholder who received an issue of £50,000 worth of shares which was decided at a board meeting in June. That is the basis of this charge. Who is this mysterious woman whose name no one could find out?

The Deputy-Chairman: I have not heard about this mysterious lady. Will the hon. and gallant Member state what this has to do with the Amendment under discussion?

Sir T. Moore: If the Committee will bear with me for one or two more sentences, I think I can clear up the mystery. It was decided at a board meeting of this company—it may be amusing for Members opposite, but the mysterious lady——

Mr. Gallacher: The mysterious lady is waiting for you outside.

The Deputy-Chairman: I must remind the hon. and gallant Member that he may argue for or against the Amendment, but he may not give an elaborate history of what happened on an occasion of which we have no power to judge.

Sir T. Moore: I do not think you have given me the opportunity to set out——

The Deputy-Chairman: I rather think I have given the hon. and gallant Member too much opportunity.

Sir T. Moore: Although this matter seems to have aroused vast hilarity on the other side of the Committee, it does affect the character I have tried to build up over many years past. The hon. Member charges me and those associated with me of being guilty of conduct which may appear gravely suspicious to the world outside. The mere fact that it was referred to by two national newspapers in rather derogatory terms, surely means that I have the right to defend myself against improper allegations. I was only going to say, and I want to finish my remarks on my original point, that when this issue was raised there were many applications for these shares, but the names of those taking them up were not readily available at the time.

The Deputy-Chairman: I have been very lenient to the hon. and gallant Member, and I cannot understand whether he is supporting or opposing the Clause.

Sir T. Moore: I am supporting the Government, but I am also pointing out that these particular shares were put into the name of a nominee until the names and addresses of the shareholders could be given. What other process could have been adopted? As soon as the names and addresses were known, they were published and the normal allocation took place. So much for nominee shareholders which the President of the Board of Trade said on Friday is an essential thing in any business. There is no dishonesty; there is no danger to the public at large; and I personally cannot see in what way that one transaction transgressed any rules of honesty, honour, or public behaviour. Although it has not been easy to make this explanation, I do hope that I have cleared the minds of those here as well as of people outside who might have formed a false impression of the transaction, and I think that in so doing

I have given one more argument for retaining the nominee shareholder.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I hope the Committee will feel that it has now had ample time in which to discuss this matter and that we can come to an agreement. There appears to be apprehension as to what we are trying to do, but nobody has suggested, except the hon. Member for West Fyfe (Mr. Gallacher), that it should be a crime for shares to be held in the name of a nominee. In fact, such a procedure may well be a legal necessity and not a mere convenience.

Mr. Gallacher: I did not say that it was a crime to hold shares in this way, but I said it was a crime not to divulge to whom shares were allotted and for whom the shares were held. People who did that should be punished.

Sir S. Cripps: It is not a crime and never has been to hold shares and not disclose a name. In the vast majority of cases where the ownership is on the one hand and the beneficiary interest on the other, it is quite unnecessary to make any disclosure. It does not interest anybody to know who gets the benefit of dividends which are paid, but this device can be used for disreputable purposes and it is against this small number of cases that we desire to take whatever action is possible. My hon. Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) has suggested that by a little more ingenuity we might have devised a Clause which, in effect, would get the person we desire to catch without undue labour to everybody else.
I can assure the hon. Member that ever since this Bill was first introduced into another place, indeed before that, we used all the ingenuity we possess, and my advisers have done the same, in order to find a method of doing that very thing; because I am as keen as he is that we should be able, in the necessary cases, to find out who the beneficial owner's are. He may note that in Clause 46 we do not introduce the words "beneficial owner." In fact we avoided them. We have power to investigate the ownership of a company for the purpose of determining the persons who are, or have been, interested in the failure, real or apparent, of the company. That includes no such awkward definition as "beneficial


owner." It was because of the awkwardness of the definition that we had to use the wider form of words, and we believe that that definition, if faithfully carried through, is the right method. The Board of Trade can act itself, or this can be carried through if complaint is made to the Board of Trade. It was felt by some hon. Members that the Clause would not be as active as they would like to see it in this matter, and therefore I put on the Order Paper the Amendment we are now discussing, whereby, in the event of a reasonably small body of shareholders in any company desiring to get this investigation carried out, they could move that the Board of Trade should do so, and, providing that it was not obviously a vexatious movement, the Board of Trade would be compelled to investigate. The Board would have no option in these cases. That would seem to me to fill any possible gap there was. I suggest that in this Amendment we are doing the best we can in order to see that nominee shareholding is not used in future as a cloak for undesirable practices.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 43, line 46, leave out "unless they think fit," and insert:
or with a complete copy thereof if they are of opinion that there is good reason for not divulging the contents of the report or of parts thereof, but shall cause to be kept by the registrar a copy of any such report or, as the case may be, the parts of any such report, as respects which they are not of that opinion."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 69.—(Nominee shareholdings.)

Motion made, and Question "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" put, and negatived.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing. Committee and on recommittal), considered.

NEW CLAUSE—(Numbering of Shares.)

(1) If, at any time all the issued shares in a company, or all the issued shares therein of a particular class, are fully paid up and rank pari passu for all purposes, none of those shares need thereafter have a distinguishing number (as required by Subsection (2) of Section sixty-two of the principal Act) so long as it remains fully paid up and ranks pari-passu for all purposes with all shares of the same class for the time being issued and fully paid up.

(2) Accordingly in Subsection (1) of Section ninety-five and Subsection (1) of Section ninety-seven of the principal Act (which relate

to the particulars to be entered in the register of members as to registered and bearer shares respectively) after the words "distinguishing each share by its number," there shall be inserted the words "so long as the share has a number."—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
This Clause deals with the numbering of shares. It is designed to meet a point made by the right hon. Member for Bristol West (Mr. Stanley). He pointed out that in Section 62, Subsection 3, of the Companies Act, 1929, there is an obligation to number shares which, in certain circumstances it was envisaged imposed an unnecessary burden upon those responsible for the company's affairs. What we seek to do in this new Clause is to remove that obligation, with Subsection (2) simply introducing a consequential Amendment.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

11.30 p.m.

CLAUSE 3.—(Circulation of members' resolutions, etc.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move: In page 4, line 25, leave out "their expense," and insert "the expense of the requisitionists."
This is a drafting Amendment to avoid an ambiguity.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is there any precedent for the use of the word "requisitionists" in any Act of Parliament? It seems to be a very odd word. Am I too late to raise that point?

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move: In page 5, line 26, at the end, to insert:
The company shall also not be bound under this Section to circulate any statement if on the application either of the company or of any other person who claims to be aggrieved the Court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure publicity for defamatory matter. The Court may order the company's costs of the application to be paid in whole or part by the requisitionists notwithstanding that they are not parties to the application.
This is a manuscript Amendment in place of the one on the Order Paper. I have been very anxious to meet hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who have that Amendment on the Order Paper. I think


there is a real point here as regards the possibility under the Clause of forcing the company to circulate a document which might be pornographic or certainly defamatory, and therefore highly undesirable. It seems that it would be desirable to have some way in which they can be relieved of this obligation.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I am bound to tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is extremely late to put in a manuscript Amendment, but if it is matter more or less generally agreed, then I am willing to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 5, line 26, after the words last inserted, to insert:
Provided that if, after a copy of a requisition requiring notice of a resolution has been deposited at the registered office of the company, an annual general meeting is called for a date six weeks or less after the copy has been deposited, the copy though not deposited within the time required by this Subsection shall be deemed to have been properly deposited for the purposes thereof.
This Amendment is designed to avoid a situation which might arise in connection with the provision relating to the circulation of notices to members of a company by the device of calling the meeting less than six weeks after the requisition requiring notice of a resolution has been deposited. As the Clause stands, it might be possible to avoid the obligation of circulating the notice by calling the meeting within six weeks. This matter was raised during the Committee stage by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hendon South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) and we feel there is a point in the argument that he advanced. This new proviso makes it impossible to avoid the obligation by that device.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Right to demand a poll.)

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I beg to move, in page 5, line 44, after "members," to insert:
having the right to vote at the meeting.
I hope this Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members on all sides. As the Clause stands, members of a company not having the right to vote at that meeting may nevertheless be entitled to demand a poll. For example, preference shareholders might do this at a meeting

at which only ordinary members were entitled to vote.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Exemption from obligation to print certain resolutions, etc.)

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 8, line 3, after "company," to insert:
as defined in Subsection (4) of Section fifty-four of this Act.
This is really a drafting Amendment which gives effect to an undertaking given by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to hon. Members opposite with regard to the definition of an exempt company. Hon. Members opposite complained that Clause 54 (4) should be inserted wherever such a company is mentioned in the Bill.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: The Parliamentary Secretary has referred to an undertaking with regard to the reference in the definition Clause to an exempt private company. He will recall that he gave a specific undertaking to look at that definition again and, if possible remodel it, because as the Bill now stands it would be impossible for anyone, without spending a great deal of time, to express an opinion on the question whether any particular private company was or was not exempt within the meaning of this Bill. Bearing in mind that Clause 54 (4) has to be taken into consideration with Clause 54 (2), and also the Third Schedule, I think the Solicitor-General and the Parliamentary Secretary repeatedly said during the Committee stage that they were not at all satisfied with the definition of an exempt private company and were seeking to modify it so that persons could determine whether or not a company fell within the exemption. Without that, grave difficulty is bound to be experienced by anyone who ploughs through exception after exception in the Third Schedule. I defy anyone skilled lawyer or not, to give an opinion which would be of much value as to whether any particular private company is exempt. I think that, before we add these words to this Clause, we should ask the Government for an explanation of why their undertaking to alter the definition of an exempt private company is not being carried out in this Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: I am very sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller) should


feel that we have not carried out our undertaking. The difficulty we felt and the imperfection we had in mind when we were making the statement, that we would look into the matter, was the expression in Clause 122 of the Bill in which is found what apparently is the definition of an exempt private company. What I thought the hon. and learned Member objected to was that definite expression of "an exempt private company" and the meaning assigned to it by the actual words in the Bill. The difficulty, I felt, was that one had to search through the Bill to try to find which Clause was concerned. We have removed that difficulty by saying which Clause it is. It is Clause 54, together with the Third Schedule, and I feel there should not be any difficulty in saying that they contain that part of the Bill which may be required if one wants to ascertain what are the qualifications which an exempted company should have. I feel, therefore, that I have not failed to carry out the undertaking which I gave, and which I had in mind when I considered this question.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Alternative remedy to winding up in cases of oppression.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, to leave out "petitioner's shares," and to insert:
shares of any members of the company.
This Amendment is to give effect to an undertaking given to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken), and it gives the court power not only to deal with the petitioner's shares but also with the shares of all the members of the company, which is obviously a desirable thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I beg to move, in page 8, line 32, at the end, to insert:
subject to the provisions of Sections fifty-five, fifty-six, fifty-seven, fifty-eight, fifty-nine and sixty of the principal Act.
This again, is an Amendment which was considered in Committee, and if I recollect aright, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was one which he would consider between the Committee stage and the Report stage. The Government have not put down any Amendment to deal with this point, and we tabled this Amendment to see what were the results of the Solicitor-General's recon-

sideration of the points raised by us in Committee.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General: We did carefully reconsider the drafting of this particular Clause in order to make certain that all the powers which it was thought the court should have were, in fact, vested in them. When this matter was under discussion in Committee, the answer which I made to the Amendment was that, in our view, the powers were adequate, and that there were all the powers of discretion which were necessary. After all, the court had the power to make such order as it thought fit, and the view we took on reconsideration of the drafting was that inasmuch as that discretion was vested in the court, the court could make such decision as it was thought necessary. Therefore, the court appeared to have all the powers which were required to do justice to all the parties in a case where a petition came before the court by way of application. We thought it surplusage to put this into the Clause, and, indeed, we had some doubt about whether, if we did so, it might not be suggested that the powers of the court were limited in some respect.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 18.—(Meaning of "holding company" and "subsidiary.")

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 16, line 28, to leave out "money lent," and to insert:
the purposes of a transaction entered into.
Subsection (3) provides that in determining whether one company is the subsidiary of another, there is to be disregarded the shares held by a bank as security for money lent. It was pointed out that those words were narrow, as shares may be pledged not only for money lent, but in connection with other commercial transactions, and, therefore, we propose that this Amendment, and similar consequential ones, as suggested by another place, should be included.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 16, line 36, to leave out from "which" to "right," in line 37, and to insert:
neither as respects dividends nor as respects capital, carries any.


This is a drafting Amendment to clear up an obscurity to which attention was called in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Extensions of disqualifications for appointment as auditor.)

11.45 p.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 18, line 39, to leave out from the beginning, to. "practised," in line 40 and to insert:
obtained adequate knowledge and experience in the course of his employment by a member of a body of accountants recognised for the purposes of the foregoing paragraph or as having before the passing of this Act.
This Amendment makes two alterations. It puts the date forward from July 18th, 1945, to the date of the passing of the Bill, so that if any accountant has been in the practice of accountancy before the middle of August, he will be able to continue in it. Secondly, it has been represented that persons may have been employed for years in the offices of practising accountants and have acquired a very good knowledge of accountancy for the purposes of audit in such cases as they are likely to be appointed for. The draft Public Accountants Bill, of which we have seen a copy, put forward by the accountancy bodies includes a similar provision. We think it reasonable in the circumstances that these two alterations should be made.

Major Bruce: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned the draft Public Accountants Bill. What are the Government's intentions in relation to that Bill?

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 43, after "company," insert:
as defined in Subsection (4) of Section fifty-four of this Act."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 19, line 1, leave out Subsection (2).
This will enable ex-Service men to practise as accountants provided they have done so before 1st January, 1947. As we have made an alteration of the date the necessity for this provision disappears.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 19, line 26, at end, insert:
as defined in Subsection (4) of Section fifty-four of this Act."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 24.—(Appointment and remuneration of auditors.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, at the end, to insert:
Provided that copies of the representations need not be sent out, and the representations need not be read out at the meeting, if, on the application either of the company or of any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this Section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter; and the court may order the company's costs on an application under this Section to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application.

This Amendment is on the same basis as the former manuscript Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, after the words last inserted, to insert:
(6) Where notice is given of an intended resolution to appoint some person or persons instead of a retiring auditor, and by reason of the death, incapacity or disqualification of that person or of all those persons, as the case may be, the resolution cannot be proceeded with, the retiring auditor shall not be automatically reappointed by virtue of subsection (1) of this section.
This is designed to meet a point made during the Committee stage by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley). The point he made was that if notice had been given to appoint somebody else in the place of an existing auditor and that other person died, the retiring auditor ought not to be automatically re-appointed. Where a course of that sort had been taken and where it was desirable to get a report on the existing auditor, presumably that would be because of some personal objection or some lack of confidence in the auditor, and therefore it would not be desirable in such a case that the old auditor should not be automatically reappointed.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 26.—(Director and secretary.)

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 21, line 36, at the end, to insert:
nor shall any company—

(a) have as secretary to the company a corporation the sole director of which is a sole director of the company: or
(b) have as sole director of the company or corporation the sole director of which is secretary to the company."



This Amendment is to meet a point made by the right hon. Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) in the Committee and is to meet quite exceptional cases. The Secretary must not be the same person as the director. There is a possibility of evasion when the sole director of a company is also secretary of that company.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Particulars of directors and secretaries.)

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 22, line 40, at the end, to insert:
(5) In subsection (1) of the said section one hundred and forty-four the words 'or managers' shall cease to have effect.
Section 144 of that principal Act provides that every company shall keep at its office a register of directors and managers, with certain particulars. These particulars will now be extended by virtue of an Amendment to be moved later by the hon. and gallant Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) so as to provide that (a) the date of birth of directors must be stated, and (b) there must also be stated any other directorships held. These are obviously not appropriate particulars as to managers, and the provision so far as the manager is concerned, has been a dead letter. The Clause is now being corrected.

Amendment agreed to.

Major Bruce: I beg to move, in page 22, line 41, to leave out from beginning, to "and." in line 43, and to insert:
The particulars required by subsection (1) of the said section one hundred and forty-four in the case of an individual who is a director within the meaning of that section—

(a) shall, in the case of a company subject to section thirty of this Act, include the date of his birth and shall, in the case of any company, include particulars of any other directorships held by him, except as mentioned in the following paragraph;
(b) need not in any case include—

(i) particulars of directorships held by him in companies of which the company is the wholly owned subsidiary, or which are the wholly owned subsidiaries either of the company or of another company of which the company is the wholly owned subsidiary; or
(ii) his nationality of origin, if his nationality is not his nationality of origin."

Perhaps it would be in order to point out that the subsequent Amendment is

consequential. Section 144 of the principal Act requires that the register of directors shall contain certain particulars. Section 108 of the principal Act also requires certain particulars. The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the particulars required in the case of directors to incorporate the date of birth in respect of directors of companies covered by Clause 30 of the present Bill, and to make it compulsory in future for directors to disclose all directorships in other than wholly owned subsidiary companies, or companies which are subsidiaries of the holding company.

Mrs. Castle: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Belcher: Both this and the following Amendment would assist the operation of the Clause, and I accordingly accept them.

Mr. Bracken: This amendment seems to me to be quite unnecessary. I do not think it assists the Clause in any way. On the other hand, it is a very hot night and, after all, there is plenty of verbosity in this Bill. Therefore, we will not resist the Amendment, but we do not think it adds anything to this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 23. line 10, at end, insert:
and for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the last foregoing subsection—

(a) the expression 'company,' shall include any body corporate incorporated in Great Britain; and
(b) a body corporate shall be deemed to be the wholly-owned subsidiary of another if it has no members except that other and that other's wholly-owned subsidiaries and its or their nominees."—[Major Bruce.]

CLAUSE 29.—(Removal of directors.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, at the end to insert:
and the director (whether or not he is a member of the company) shall be entitled to be heard on the resolution at the meeting.
(3) Where notice is given of an intended resolution to remove a director under this section and the director concerned makes with respect thereto representations in writing to the company (not exceeding a reasonable length) and requests their notification to members of the company, the company shall, unless the representations are received by it too late for it to do so—

(a) in any notice of the resolution given to members of the company state the fact of the representations having been made; and


(b) send a copy of the representations to every member of the company to whom notice of the meeting is sent (whether before or after receipt of the representations by the company)

and if a copy of the representations is not sent as aforesaid because received too late or because of the company's default, the director may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations shall be read out at the meeting.
This Amendment is to meet the argument advanced by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bournemouth (Mr. Bracken) during the Committee stage. The effect of the Amendment is that where a special notice is given of a resolution to remove a director of a company, that director should have the right of requiring the company to circulate a statement of his own case with regard to the matter. This is similar to other provisions in other parts of the Bill. It simply gives him that right.

Mr. Bracken: I am much obliged to the Solicitor-General.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, after the words last inserted, to insert:
Provided that copies of the representations need not be sent out, and the representations need not be read out at the meeting, if, on the application either of the company or of any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter; and the court may order the company's costs on an application under this section to be paid in whole or in part by the director, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application
This is another manuscript Amendment.

Mr. Manningham-Buller: I think it would be ungracious of us not to express appreciation of the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade has met a point of substance we raised in Committee, and which we sought to deal with in much the same way by an Amendment that we put down. This is the last of three manuscript Amendments dealing with a particular point. I rise to express pleasure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has seen fit to meet us. I think that with these three Amendments the Bill will be much more effective and better than before.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.—(Retirement of directors under age limit.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 24, line 32, to leave out "other than a private company," and to insert:
which is subject to this section.
This Amendment and the following Amendment are designed to pave the way for an Amendment which is intended to meet the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan). The Amendment deals with Clause 30, which relates to the retiring age of directors. The point made during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for South Cardiff was that the Clause should apply to a subsidiary of a public company in the same way as it applies to a public company. At the moment private companies are excluded, and the proposal the hon. Member advanced was that if the private company was a subsidiary to the public company the Clause should nevertheless apply to it. He put down an Amendment to that effect and we have in these Amendments and in a subsequent Amendment to Clause 30—page 25, line 38—sought to deal with his Amendment from the drafting point of view.

Amendment agreed to.

12 m.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 34, leave out "other than a private company," and insert:
which is subject to this section."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 25, line 38, at the end to insert:
(8) A company shall be subject to this section if it is not a private company or if, being a private company, it is the subsidiary of a body corporate incorporated in the United Kingdom which is neither a private company nor a company registered under the law relating to companies for the time being in force in Northern Ireland and having provisions in its constitution which would, if it had been registered in Great Britain, entitle it to lank as a private company; and for the purposes of any other section of this Act which refers to a company subject to this section a company shall be deemed to be subject to this section notwithstanding that all or any of the provisions thereof are excluded or modified by the company's articles.
This is the Amendment of which I have just spoken. It is the one which contains a full definition of a public company.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that the Amendment in my name will not be called?

Mr. Speaker: I did not select it.

Mr. Chamberlain: Is there no opportunity of raising it?

Mr. Speaker: There is no opportunity if I do not select it.

CLAUSE 31.—(Duty to disclose age to company.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 25, line 39, to leave out Subsection (1), and to insert:
(1) Any person who is appointed or to his knowledge proposed to be appointed director of a company subject to the last foregoing section at a time when he has attained any retiring age applicable to him as director either under this Act or under the company's articles shall give notice of his age to the company:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to a person's reappointment on the termination of a previous appointment as director of the company.
This Amendment is designed to meet a point made with regard to Clause 31, which is the Clause which places upon directors the obligation of notifying their age, when they have reached that retiring age, to companies of which they are directors. The argument was made in Committee that it was very difficult to tell from the Clause as it is at present worded exactly what he has to do. What he is required to do is to disclose his age to the company and it is not very clear how one is to comply with those words. What we seek to do in this Amendment is to incorporate or to attract the effect of Section 92, Subsection (1), and Section 370, Subsection (1), of the Companies Act, 1929.
The result will be that the directors will give notice in order to comply with the Clause by sending out notification to the registered offices of the company. That will leave directors in no doubt as to what they have Jo do.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 26, line 2, leave out "disclose," and insert "give notice of."

In line 14, leave out Subsection (4).—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 33.—(Power to restrain fraudulent persons from managing companies.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 26, line 27 after "convicted," insert "on indictment."
This Amendment is designed to meet a contention which was advanced by a number of hon. Members in Committee. I was not at the time convinced of the justice of the arguments adduced, but on reconsideration I think there is more in the arguments than appeared at the time. What it does is this. Clause 73 provides that orders can be made preventing people from taking part in the management of a company. Subsection (1, a) lays down that an order of that sort can be made if a person is convicted of an offence in relation to the formation of a company. It was urged that that ought to be limited to convictions on indictment, as the provision was far too wide. We feel on further consideration that the reasons urged in support of that point of view ought to be given effect to. This Amendment would limit convictions which may give rise to such an order, to convictions made on indictment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 27, line 8, to leave out Subsection (3) and to insert:
(3) A person intending to apply for the making of an order under this section by the court having jurisdiction to wind up a company shall give not less than ten days notice of his intention to the person against whom the order is sought, and on the hearing of the application the last mentioned person may appear and himself give evidence or call witnesses
This Amendment deals with a not dissimilar point designed to give effect to a promise I made to reconsider a succeeding condition of this Clause. The Clause as it stands makes it possible for orders to be made against persons preventing them from taking part in the management of a company for certain periods, and if members would remind themselves of the concluding words of Subsection (5), they will see that the order can be made against a person defined as a person in accordance with the directions or instructions the directors of a company have been accustomed to accept. A person of that sort may not be a member of the company at all, and in those circumstances it is unsatisfactory that an order


should be made against such a person when he may not even know that it is being applied against him, and in circumstances in which he can have no appeal against the Order. We have sought to provide that a person desiring to appeal for the making of an order must make the person against whom he seeks to bring the order a party to the proceedings. The result would be not only that such a person would know perfectly well that an order was being asked for, but under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, 1925, the effect would be that he would have a right to appeal against the making of that order. This is perfectly fair and does safeguard the position of a person who in those circumstances finds himself not in a position to appeal against it.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Bracken: I beg to move, in page 27, line 29, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 32.
I am very grateful to the Government for carrying out all the undertakings they gave us in Committee, and they have been so perfectly and sweetly reasonable that they can be forgiven for overlooking one of the promises made to us by the Solicitor-General on 1st July. The right hon. Member for West Bristol (Mr. Stanley) and I objected to the use of the word "officer." We thought it was a superfluous word and asked the Solicitor-General to define what was meant by it, and I think he shared our confusion at the introduction of this unnecessary word. He promised to look into it and, if necessary, later on to move an Amendment. I am not complaining that the Government have not done this, but I see no reason why they should not do it now and take out of the Bill one word which is superfluous. I "hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to meet us in fulfilment of the promise which he made.

The Solicitor-General: We have carefully considered this Amendment, and we feel that in some ways the Bill would be incomplete without the provision which it seeks to omit. As I explained during the Committee stage, these words were nominally to deal with the person who could appoint what I loosely described as "nominee directors" or people who would act at the beck and call of the person appointing them. This definition was in the Companies Act, 1929, and I

feel that circumstances might well arise in which it would be eminently desirable, in the interests of clean business, that a person not a member of a company, or a director of it, but who had guided it through undesirable proceedings, should have, an order made against him. If the Amendment were made, it would truncate the Clause, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press it.

Mr. Bracken: In view of the explanation just given, which clears up the point of terminology of which I have spoken, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 35.—(Prohibition of loans to directors.)

Amendment made: In page 28, line 19, after "company," insert:
as defined in Subsection (4) of Section fifty-four of this Act."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Register of directors' shareholdings, etc.)

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 31, line 5, at end, to insert:
Provided that the register need not include shares in any body corporate which is the wholly-owned subsidiary of another body corporate, and for this purpose a body corporate shall be deemed to be the wholly-owned subsidiary of another if it has no members but that other and that other's wholly-owned subsidiaries and its or their nominees.
We have had representations from various bodies that it would cause a good deal of unnecessary work to include in the Register of Share Dealings, shares held ex hypothesi, that is, the only share held as a nomination share.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 31, line 14, to leave out from beginning, to "any," in line 15, and to insert:
The nature and extent of a director's interest or right in or over.
This and the following Amendment really go together. In the Committee stage, the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) said that the Clause as it stood covered only the case where a director was concerned only in a fiduciary capacity, and it was agreed that there were many cases where he might be concerned in that capacity and in other capacities also. As amended, the Clause will deal with the point raised.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made In page 31, line 16, leave out "that fact."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 46.— [Appointment and powers of inspectors to investigate ownership of company.]

Amendment made: In page 43, line 27, leave our "the Section of this Act relating," and insert:
section forty-two of this Act (which relates."—[Mr. Belcher.]

CLAUSE 48.—(Power to impose restrictions on shares or debentures.)

12.15 a.m.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move: In page 44, line 39, after "concerned," insert or any of them."
This is a drafting Amendment and is designed to make clear that there are consequences which can be applied if there is any obstruction. Some people might be, or profess to be, anxious to assist, whereas others might obstruct to the best of their ability.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Contents of annual return.)

Amendment made, in page 47, line 45, at end insert:
and in the said sections one hundred and eight and one hundred and nine references to the particulars required by that Act to be contained with respect to directors in the said register shall be construed as referring to the particulars required by that Act and this Act to be contained therein with respect to the company's directors."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move: In page 48, line 26, at the end, to insert:
(4) In the case of a company keeping a dominion register—

(a) references in the last foregoing subsection to the particulars required by subsections (1) and (2) of the said section one hundred and eight shall be taken as not including any such particulars contained in the dominion register, in so far as copies of the entries containing those particulars are not received at the registered office of the company before the date when the return in question is made; and
(b) where an annual return is made between the date when any entries are made in the dominion register and the date when copies of those entries are received at the registered office of the company, the particulars contained in those entries, so far as relevant to an annual return, shall be included in the next or a subsequent annual return as may be appropriate having regard to the particulars included in that return with respect to the company's principal register."


This Amendment deals with a case of a company which keeps a dominion register. It is really consequential on Subsection 3 of Clause 53. In that Subsection a company, instead of filing a complete return of members every year, may file a complete return every third year and only a list of changes in the two intervening years. However, under Section 185 it might be that the particulars of the entries made in a dominion register could not be included in the first return made after the particulars are received in the company's registered office in London, as appears in Section (3). This Amendment is designed to meet the various situations covered by the Clause in a more satisfactory manner.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 60.—(Allotment of shares of debentures to be dealt with on stock exchange.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move in page 53, line 10, to leave out Subsections (5) and (6), and to insert:
(5) Section ninety-four of the principal Act shall have effect as if in subsection (1) thereof (which restricts the right of a company to commence business or exercise borrowing powers in cases where the company has issued a prospectus inviting the public to subscribe for its shares) there were inserted after paragraph (b) thereof the following paragraph:—
'(bb) no money is or may become liable to be repaid to applicants for any shares or debentures which have been offered for public subscription by reason of any failure to apply for or obtain permission for the shares or debentures to be dealt in on any stock exchange and.'
This Amendment is designed to meet a point made by the hon. Member for Hendon South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). Clause 60 provides that in certain events money subscribed for shares is to be repaid by a company; that is to say, if a company has not either applied for, or obtained, permission to deal in these shares. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that as the Clause stands it is, at any rate, just arguable that if, for example, a person who has sold his business to a company for shares seeks to sell those shares to the public, the company is not to start its business if the offer to the public of the shares brings about a situation in which the subscriber's money is to be returned. The Amendment puts it beyond doubt that the company is only restricted from commencing business or using its borrowing


powers where it is made liable to refund moneys in connection with application for shares which it has offered and not, for example, in relation to the offer by the vendor of a business of shares obtained by sale of its business.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 62.—(Reports to be set out in prospectus to which s. 35 of principal Act applies.)

Amendment made: In page 57, line 23, after "company," insert "as defined in Subsection (4) of Section fifty-four of this Act."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 67.—(Statements in lieu of prospectus.)

Amendment made: In page 63, line 26, leave out "(1) and (2)." and insert "(2) and (3)."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 68.—(Interpretation of provisions relating to prospectuses, etc.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 63, line 43, to leave out from beginning, to end of line 4, page 64.
This Amendment goes with the Amendment in page 64, line 6, and it deals with the point that was made on the Committee stage to the effect that the expression "domestic purposes" really was too limited and, for example, might exclude the case where capital was being raised and it was convenient for the partners of a firm or directors of a private company to approach persons not known to them perhaps, but who were in the same line of business, and who might be interested in an offer of shares. What we have sought to do is slightly to widen the phrase, and we do so by providing that an offer shall not be treated as an offer to the public if it is calculated not to result in shares coming into the ownership of persons other than those to whom they are offered. We have sought to retain it somewhat in that way, and we feel that we have met the point that the previous definition was rather restricted.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 64, line 6, leave out from "invitation," to second "and" in line 8, and insert:
to be treated as made to the public if it can properly be regarded, in all the circumstances, as not being calculated to result, directly or indirectly, in the shares or debentures becoming available for subscription or

purchase by persons other than those receiving the offer or invitation, or otherwise as being a domestic concern of the persons making and receiving it."—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 80.—(Membership of holding company.)

Amendment made: In page 73, line 28, leave out from "for," to end of line 29, and insert:
the purposes of a transaction entered into by it in the ordinary course of a business which includes the lending of money."—[Sir S. Cripps.]

CLAUSE 91.—(Amendments as to preferential payments.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 82, line 16, at the end, to insert:
(4) For the purposes of the said sections two hundred and sixty-four and two hundred and ninety-eight any remuneration in respect of a period of holiday or of absence from work through sickness or other good cause shall be deemed to be wages in respect of services rendered to the company during that period.
(5) The debts which are to be paid in priority under the said section two hundred and sixty-four shall include all accrued holiday remuneration becoming payable to a clerk, servant, workman or labourer (or in the case of his death to any other person in his right) on the termination of his employment with the company before or by the effect of the winding up order or resolution; and in relation to any sums payable in priority by virtue of this subsection, subsection (3) of the said section two hundred and sixty-four and paragraphs (3) and (5) of the said section two hundred and ninety-eight shall apply as they apply in relation to wages.
(6) For the purposes of this section—

(a) the expression "accrued holiday remuneration" includes in relation to any person, all sums which, by virtue either of his contract of employment or of any enactment (including any order made or direction given under any Act), are payable on account of the remuneration which would in the ordinary course have become payable to him in respect of a period of holiday had his employment with the company continued until he became entitled to be allowed the holiday; and
(b) references to remuneration in respect of a period of holiday include any sums which, if they had been paid, would have been treated for the purposes of the National Insurance Act, 1946, or any enactment repealed by that Act as remuneration in respect of that period."

This Amendment is designed to meet a point made by two of my hon. Friends—the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) and the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) during the Committee stage. What they proposed and what we feel in a position to


accept is that among the debts which should be given priority in the winding up of a company should be included money payable in respect of holidays, money in respect of absence from work and other similar cases, and also what is known as accrued holiday remuneration payable in statutory and contractual holiday schemes. The first part of the proposal is really only drafting in the sense that it should be said that where a person is absent from work and does not as a result render any service to his employer, the money payable to him under a contract during his illness is not money within the provisions of Section 264 of the Companies Act, 1929. The same can be said concerning money paid in respect of a holiday which he has already had. We are seeking to make clear in both those cases that in cases in which the employee is paid money for which he was not rendering a service, the money should be regarded as payable in respect of services within the meaning of Section 264 of the Act of 1929, so that that part of the Amendment is really drafting.
The second part, Subsection (5), is more than drafting. This brings into the scope of priority debts, accumulated holiday payments, that is, payments which fall to be made to an employee in respect of a holiday he is entitled to take under terms of various statutory holiday schemes such as under the Catering Wages Act, 1943, the Holidays With Pay Act, 1938, the Road Haulage (Wages) Act, 1938, and similar acts, and also in cases where, under the terms of his contract, there is a fund set aside to provide him with certain payments in respect of a period in which he is held to be on holiday. The Amendment is designed to meet those points and was supported generally by both sides of the Committee.

Major Haughton: May I make the point that in the case of those holiday funds, the question of making them priority does not arise?

The Solicitor-General: Various schemes are possible. We have sought to include those under which certain payment is due and is held for the employee when his employment terminates. There are certain funds set aside under terms of a trust and that type would not be included, because it is not practicable to include it as the

employee has no claim to a specific portion of the fund. We are therefore limiting it to specific cases. We have brought in the ones which we think are practicable to bring in, and to leave out the others which we think it is not practicable to bring in.

Major Haughton: But the point is this: whether it is under a statutory scheme or under "a trustee scheme, that particular money is set aside and is not part of the funds of the company.

The Solicitor-General: In some cases it is and in some cases it is not. Where it is possible we have brought it in. Otherwise it has not been practicable to do so.

12.30 a.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I think I am speaking for those who sit on these Benches when I say that we welcome the general principle of this Amendment, though its effect will not be quite so extensive as one might suppose. In the ordinary way, it will not give to the employees the same benefit as it will to the banks and other institutions, which can be prevailed upon to advance money to a company which is in difficulties in order to enable it to continue to pay its workmen and to meet those other sufficient awards to induce them to continue in the company's employment. In effect, we are considering the position of the creditors of a company in liquidation and we are inclined to look at the provisions of an Amendment of this sort somewhat narrowly, so as to see that it does not give anything in the nature of an unfair priority. There is one question which I should like to ask the Government. As I understand it, the first paragraph of the Amendment is only intended to deal with the case where there is due money for holidays which have actually been taken; that is to say, where money has already probably been earned, the period of holidays being regarded as a general period of service by a servant of the company.
When we come to the next part, the position is not quite so clear. As I understand it, where there are holidays due to a servant of a company, although he has not taken them, they may be said to be already due when they are provided under some statutory scheme. This paragraph is limited to statutory schemes, though


it covers any case where an accommodation has been made between the employee and the company. I can imagine that an abuse of that kind could ensue. Where a company was in difficulties it would be possible for it to come to terms quickly with either some specially favoured employees or perhaps with all employees, so that they could get a somewhat longer period than they were otherwise accustomed to. In that way the company would be enabled to give special advantage to those which had been working for it as against the normal trade practice. I am a little apprehensive that this may be the effect. I am sure that the Government did not intend it that way, but, in any event, I should like to have an assurance that it will not be operated in that way.

Mr. Mitchison: I should like to thank the Solicitor-General for presenting this Amendment, which meets our views on this side of the House. Our knowledge of the need of such an Amendment was founded in one case on actual facts. As regards the difficulty which has been suggested by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), to me such a case seems an improbability, and I think we should wait until we have actual experience of one such case.

Mr. Attewell: At this time of the morning very few words are required from me. but I should like to associate myself with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). This is of importance today, because there are so many industries with holiday provision schemes. It is true that those schemes vary but in the main one can say that the year is split up into so many parts and the operative who is working is credited with one forty-eighth or one-fiftieth part of the year. In my own particular industry, which some hon. Members may knew has a record in this method of holiday payments there was a deduction made from the wage packets of the operatives Week by week. The manufacturer pays his employees and those payments go into a general holiday fund. Nevertheless, to the firms in bankruptcy the employees' portion has been regarded as wages to them. Consequently, the payments ranked with other profits and the employers' share was not paid out. I

am, therefore, sure that this proposal will be a help to all concerned.

The Solicitor-General: I think it is most unlikely that there would be any dispute in view of impending liquidation of companies in difficulties, or that companies would hurriedly set up claims with a view to providing for paying employees or to get preferential payments in respect of holiday payments. The likelihood of this being abused is, I think, next to nil.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 82, line 34, to leave out "(3)," and insert "(6)."

Mr. Belcher: This Amendment is purely drafting. The one which follows is to accord to employees of a company, in cases where a receiver has been appointed under debenture security in charge of the company's property, the same rights as regards holiday remuneration as are accorded by the Amendment to page 82, line 16.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 82, line 39, after "holders," insert:
with the substitution in Subsection (5) for the reference to the winding up order or resolution of a reference to the appointment of the receiver or possession being taken, by or on behalf of the debenture holders, of the company's property."—[Mr. Belcher.]

CLAUSE 112.—(Accounts of foreign companies.)

Amendment made: In page 100, line 30, to leave out from "had," to "extended," in line 31, and to insert:
section fifty-four of, and the Third Schedule to, this Act."—[Mr. Belcher.]

CLAUSE 113.—(List of directors.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 101, line 4, at the end, to insert:
(2) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of the said section three hundred and forty-four, the reference to such particulars as are by the principal Act required to be contained with respect to directors in the register of directors of a company shall be taken as including—

(a) in relation to name and nationality, the particulars but only the particulars, required by that Act, as amended by this Act;
(b) in relation to directorships, as including the particulars, but only the particulars required by that Act as originally enacted;

and as not including particulars of date of birth as required by this Act.


This Amendment, which deals with the position of foreign companies, is largely consequential on Amendments which were made to Section 144 of the Companies Act, 1929. What it does is to give directors of those companies the same concessions in regard to their previous names and nationalities as are given to directors of companies registered in Great Britain. It does not place upon them the obligation of stating their other directorships or their date of birth as obviously in the circumstances that would not be a matter of any interest or importance.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 115.—(Bankruptcy.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 101, line 18, to leave out "and (2)," and insert "to (6)."
This Amendment, which really goes with the next Amendment in page 101, line 21, is designed to bring the Bankruptcy Acts into conformity with the Companies Bill in certain respects. They give employees of firms, and individuals, the same rights of priority in respect of holiday pay and remuneration as are given to employees of companies on winding up. In that respect, the Amendment assimilates the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, to the position of the Companies Act, 1929, as amended by this Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 101, line 21, at end insert:
but with the substitution for references to the company and to the winding up order of resolution of references to the bankrupt and to the receiving order or in the case of a person dying insolvent, to the deceased and to his death, and also with the omission of so much of subsection (5) of the said section of this Act as relates to subsection (3) of section two hundred and sixty-four of the principal Act.

In page 102, line 9, at end insert:
(7) In the application of this section to Scotland, references to the receiving order shall be construed as references to the award of sequestration,"—[The Solicitor-General.]

CLAUSE 122.— [Construction and application of principal Act and this Act.]

Amendment made: In page 107, leave out lines 37 to 40.—[The Solicitor-General.]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Accounts.)

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 109, line 33, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 43, and to insert:
and for the purposes of this paragraph the net amount at which any assets stand in the company's books at the date of the coming into force of this Schedule (after deduction of the amounts previously provided or written off for depreciation or diminution in value) shall, if the figures relating to the period before that date cannot be obtained without unreasonable expense or delay, be treated as if it were the amount of a valuation of those assets made at that date and, where any of those assets are sold, the said net amount less the amount of the sales shall be treated as if it were the amount of a valuation so made of the remaining assets.
This is very largely a drafting Amendment to the provisions of the First Schedule, which is the Schedule which sets out what a company has to include in its balance sheet and profit and loss account. It really effects a drafting Amendment to the provisions of paragraph 2, which sets out how the fixed assets of a company are to be valued for the purpose of its balance sheet. What it does is to say that where you have, in the case of an asset acquired before the date when the Schedule comes into force difficulty in ascertaining past facts regarding acquisition and sales made out of it, all you need do is bring in a net figure of amounts written for depreciation up to the date. It is designed to deal with cases in which you have a lot of tools or small items, and it is not feasible to trace purchases or sales, and to avoid otherwise unnecessary work.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page no, line 17, leave out from beginning, to "sub-paragraph," and insert "in accordance with."

In line 19, leave out "paragraphs (a) and (i)," and insert" paragraph (a)."

In line 21, leave out "paragraphs (b) and (ii)," and insert "paragraph (b)."

In line 24, leave out "by any of the said methods," and insert "in accordance with the said sub-paragraph (1)."—[The Solicitor-General.]

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 112, line 34, at the end, to insert:
and the Stock Exchange value of any investments of which the market value is shown (whether separately or not) and is taken as being higher than their Stock Exchange value.


This Amendment deals with the valuation of a company's aggregate investments other than trade investments. Hon. Members will find that paragraph 7 of the First Schedule specifies how certain items, which are to be set out separately, are to be dealt with, and that certain things have to be done by way of note, or statement or report annexed. If hon. Members will look at paragraph 8, they will see how the aggregate market value of investments other than trade investments of companies is to be set out. The Amendment is designed to meet an argument by the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher). Where a finance company held a considerable block of shares, if shares were unloaded on to the market suddenly, you would get a very different value from the quoted Stock Exchange prices of the shares, and it would be misleading to put in the quoted prices. Therefore, what we say is that in any case where the market value is shown as being higher than the Stock Exchange value, and the directors of the company wish to include trading investments at a value higher than the Stock Exchange value, the Stock Exchange value has to be shown separately, set out in a note or statement annexed.

Amendment agreed to.

12.45 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, in page 114, line 28, at the end, to insert:
otherwise than by way of security only for the purposes of a transaction entered into by it in the ordinary course of a business which includes the lending of money.
The object of this Amendment is to exclude from the requirements of Subparagraph (1) (iii), shares and debentures by way of security only in the ordinary course of business. The exception made is in line with that in Clause 82.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 115, line 33, after "subsidiaries," to insert:
except that they may in a proper case be so treated where—

(a) the company is itself the subsidiary of another body corporate; and
(b) the shares were acquired from that body corporate or a subsidiary of it."

This again is an Amendment to the First Schedule and deals with the case of a holding company with a subsidiary

company. Paragraph 5 deals with the case of profit and loss of a subsidiary company being brought into the accounts. What the Amendment seeks to do is this. If one looks at paragraph 5, it will be seen that it provides that one should not take pre-acquisition profits of a subsidiary company as revenue in the accounts of the holding company: that is to say, profits which the subsidiary company makes before it is acquired. Obviously, when they come into possession, when the subsidiary company has been acquired, they should not be treated by the holding company as part of the revenue, but should be treated as capital, because they would have increased the price which had been paid by the holding company to acquire the subsidiary company. That should not necessarily apply in the case of the acquisition of a company from outside the group. A company which is not outside the group, but was acquired does not necessarily come Within the same group What the Amendment does is this: It says that in such a case, where the directors think proper, the pre-acquisition profits of the subsidiary may be treated as the revenue of the holding company, but it is wholly within the discretion of the directors.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Do I understand from the Solicitor-General that it lies with the opinion of the directors whether it is a proper case or not?

The Solicitor-General: In the opinion of those charged with that particular duty and the management of the company's affairs. It will only be done in the proper case. The emphasis is on that.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 117, line 28, leave out "sub-paragraph (1) (a)," and insert "sub-paragraphs (1) (a) and (3)."—[The Solicitor-General.]

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Conditions as to interests in shares and debentures of exempt private company.)

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 120, line 28, to leave out "money lent," and insert:
the purposes of a transaction entered into.
This is little more than a drafting Amendment. This point has been dealt with elsewhere in the Bill and has been put down at the instance of the banks.

Mr. Bracken: I never thought that in the year 1947 I should be hearing the party opposite obeying the demands of the banks. It is only 12 years since they were holding a point of view about the bankers' ramp, and here again we see how they are falling into the clutches of the tyrant.

Sir S. Cripps: I may point out to the right hon. Gentleman that since the Bank of England has been nationalised, the banks now have an aura of respectability.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Belcher: I beg to move, in page 121, line 17, to leave out "otherwise than," and to insert:
other than—

(i) a body corporate established for charitable purposes only and having no right to exercise or control the exercise of any part of the voting power at any general meeting of the company;
(ii) a body corporate which is a trustee of the said trusts and has such an interest only."

This Amendment carries out an undertaking given to the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster). Its effect is that a company will not lose its status as an exempt private company if some of its shares or debentures are held by a body corporate established for charitable purposes only.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 121, line 50, at the end, to insert:

Exception for cases of disability.

4. Where the person entitled to any share or debenture or any interest in any share or debenture is of unsound mind or otherwise under any disability, and by reason thereof the share, debenture or interest is vested in an administrator, curator or other person on behalf of the person entitled thereto, then in relation to the share, debenture or interest the person in whom it is so vested and the person entitled thereto shall be treated for the purposes of his Schedule as if they were the same person."

What this Amendment does is to provide a further exception from the second basic condition which exempt companies have to satisfy in order to come within the definition. The second basic contention is that no person other than the holder of the shares in the company has any interest in those shares. If that is complied with, then, subject to the exemptions allowed, what this does is to make a further exception where interest

is vested in an administrator or curator or any other person on behalf of a person of unsound mind, or under a disability—for example, a child. "Curator" is the Scottish term. I understand for administrator.

Amendment agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions applied to unregistered companies.)

Amendments made: In page 127, line 25, leave out "eighteen, sections twenty to."

In line 46, leave out:
Sections three hundred and sixty-two to three hundred and sixty-three," and insert "Section three hundred and sixty-two."—[Mr. Belcher.]

NINTH SCHEDULE—(Enactments repealed.)

Amendments made: In page 130, line 9, at end, insert "and subsection (5) of that Section."

In line 46, leave out from the beginning, to end of line 48, and insert:
In Subsection (1) of Section one hundred and forty-four, the words "or managers" and, in paragraph (a), the words from "and if," to the end of the paragraph, except the words "and his business occupation if any."—[Mr. Belcher.]

Order for Third Reading, read.

12.53 a.m.

Sir S. Cripps: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I do not propose to detain the House any time, but I must first notify the House that the King's Assent has been given to Clause 100 making certain provisions with regard to property vested in the Crown.
I think this Bill shows the results of the endeavours of many people on many sides of the House to direct and forge the best implement we can to regulate company practice and procedure in this country and to bring them up to date. By these provisions we have brought about a closer relationship between ownership and control in the companies and remedied many of the faults in Company Law which have made themselves apparent over the years since the last Act was passed and we have laid a firmer and better foundation for the good reputation which British companies have in many parts of the world.

Mr. B. Bracken: Were it not a sultry morning, one could take up a great deal of time in this agreeable task of congratulating ourselves on passing such a good Bill. I must say that if this Government would only concentrate on measures such as this, the work of His Majesty's loyal Opposition would indeed be a pleasure. I feel that we should congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the part he has played in bringing in this Bill. His two Parliamentary assistants who have borne the burden and the heat of the day, more especially the Solicitor-General, are also to be congratulated; and the officers, without whom we would not now be giving a Third Reading to this Bill, are entitled to very great credit. Before I sit down, I would say that Lord Justice Cohen and his Committee have rendered a very great service to the country.

Orders of the Day — HORTICULTURAL CONTAINERS (SHORTAGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Baker White: I apologise for raising this matter at such a late hour, and would not do so unless I felt it was one of vital importance. The matter on which I want to speak is the shortage of containers for horticultural products, because this shortage has begun to impede food production. Horticultural production in Britain is worth over £100,000,000 a year. The greater part of that production of fruit and vegetables is transported from the grower to the retailer in returnable containers—wooden boxes or wicker baskets. We import something like £50,000,000 worth of fruit and vegetables from abroad which comes in non-returnable containers of wood and paper board of good quality and appearance. This is, of course, a great change since prewar, and I will show how the change has affected one of our largest growers of fruit and vegetables in Kent and in the country. Before the war 66 per cent. of his crops were marketed in non-returnable wooden containers and the remainder in returnable

wicker baskets belonging to the wholesaler. Today 100 per cent. of his crops are marketed in open heavy wood containers belonging to the wholesaler. For the future, what he would like to do, to move his products to the consumer in the best possible condition, would be to send up 75 per cent. of them in non-returnable containers made either of light wood or wood pulp.
What is the general position today of horticulture as a whole? There is a general shortage of the right types of containers. There is a growing shortage of chip baskets made of white lime, especially of one pound and two pound sizes. Containers of basket shape made of paper board are becoming increasingly difficult to get. The important thing is that it is just the time of year when they are wanted most for tomatoes. It is increasingly difficult to get timber for returnable boxes. The foreigner is not faced with any of these difficulties at all. In containers he has the advantage over our own people all along the line, but so have the Channel Islands who are sending tomatoes over here in well made non-returnable containers of Oregon pine. The Dutch send their lettuces in non-returnable wooden crates and melons and tomatoes in strong wooden crates made of Swedish pine covered with high quality brown paper. The melons are bedded down in wood wool. Italian plums and cherries come in boxes made of lime wood. South African plums and U.S. and Italian grapes and plums come in strong wooden boxes with plenty of packing. Some Belgian grapes even come in non-returnable wicker baskets. Our own growers are working under a heavy and growing shortage of packing materials while foreign importers have ample supplies of wood, paper, wood wool and cotton wool. I will explain in a moment why I raise this particular point.
It may be asked why the wooden returnable container is unsatisfactory. First, it is very heavy, weighing from ten to fourteen lbs. empty, and, with the best will in the world, it is impossible to pack fruit in these containers so that it reaches the consumer in perfect condition. Secondly, these containers mean an increased burden on the already overburdened railways and road transport. To give one example, in the week ending 19th July, Kent growers sent 3,400


tons of fruit to the Northern towns, nearly all of which went in these containers, and the whole lot had to be returned empty. What our own growers want is the materials to enable them to send their goods to market in good condition, but they lack paper, wood, and wood-wool. I fully appreciate the difficulties; all these goods are in short supply, but I am going to make what I hope is a constructive suggestion. In the food Debate this month, the Minister of Food said.
The simple facts are that these fruits pineapples, for example, or the peaches or grapes we imported last autumn and which, I hope, we shall import again this autumn from France, came from countries which certainly have no feeding stuffs to send to us and which have nothing else to send. They are countries which owe us money and we get these very acceptable fruits, or we get nothing else. By taking these fruits, we aid considerably the reconstruction of these countries."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st July, 1947; Vol. 439, c. 1186.]
Well and good in the past eighteen months we have taken nearly £7 million worth of fruit and vegetables from Holland, over £3 million worth from France, over £17 million worth from Spain and the Canaries, and nearly £20 million worth from Italy—all in non-returnable containers of good quality. We should say to these countries, "We will go on helping you by taking your fruit and vegetables on the condition that you send us the paper and containers of which you have such adequate supplies We will aid your reconstruction, but we insist that, in return, you aid British horticulture."
We should relate a definite quantity of fruit and vegetables to a definite quota of empty containers and paper. The containers could be sent collapsed and made up here. I cannot see that this would be any hardship to those countries who, as the Minister of Food has pointed out, owe us money If they can send us high quality paper wrapped round tomatoes and grapes, they can send it to us in the sheet. I do ask the Government to consider this suggestion; and I want to make another suggestion. It is for the Government to inquire into the use of homegrown bamboo from the West Country for making non-returnable containers. Before the war, split bamboo containers were used extensively for flowers, and I see no reason why they should not be used for lettuce and watercress, at any rate, and, of course, for flowers
Furthermore, I should like to ask what is happening to the off-cuts and short-ends

of pine which come in with shipments of foreign timber. I suspect that they go to be used for firewood, but they are perfectly suitable for making containers. This shortage of containers is both a long-term and a short-term problem. The short-term problem is that, unless the Government take action quickly we may not have enough containers this year to get sufficient apples and pears to the market. The long-term problem is this. With the removal of controls, soft fruit production is increasing, especially the production of strawberries. With improved varieties, a greater acreage under production, and gas storage, we are within a measurable distance of supplying the whole of the home demand for apples. It will be realised that our own apple production is a matter of the greatest importance when I point out that in the last 18 months we have imported £6,785,000 worth of apples which included over £5 million worth paid for in dollars. But our growers must have adequate supplies of containers if they are to do their job properly. British horticulture is a great industry. It has 60,000 producers in it. We in Great Britain grow the best fruit and vegetables in the world, and it is right and proper that as soon as it is conceivably possible our growers should have the best possible containers.

1.6 a.m.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I have only a few remarks to add to those of my hon. Friend. I wish to endorse every word he has said. I represent a horticultural constituency, and I can assure the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food that there is very grave concern in my constituency on this matter among the large number of horticulturists there. I do not often get up in this House without making some constructive suggestions, and although the suggestion I put forward may not meet the whole of the case, I would point out that there is a large number of non-returnable containers which are being imported from abroad and which are being broken up and sold in the metropolis as firewood. This is considered to be a tremendous waste by horticulturists. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to have inquiries made into this matter, to see whether these non-returnable containers cannot be re-fabricated into the sort of boxes and containers


which are required by the horticultural industry so urgently.
There is another matter to which I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give urgent attention. There are certain people breaking the law in this country by putting foreign produce into containers marked "Empire Produce." The last question I wish to raise is in regard to split bamboos. In the whole of the Middle East both fruit and vegetables are crated in nothing else but split bamboos. If these things can be done, and there is a chance of thereby giving encouragement to. bamboo growing, I do suggest to the hon. Lady that she should be doing something about it.

1.9 a.m.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish briefly to associate myself with this matter tonight, more particularly from the Scottish angle. The development of the horticultural industry in Scotland is of the greatest possible importance. At the moment, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, the great bulk of vegetables and fruit consumed in Scotland today are brought from south of the Border or from the Continent. They arrive bedraggled and faded, and really when they reach us are not worth eating at all. There is a very great opportunity in Scotland for the development of horticulture. We grow soft fruit probably better than any other part of the United Kingdom. We can grow tomatoes and we can grow flowers and vegetables of all sorts, but we never do, except for our own consumption in private gardens. Everything else comes from south of the Border or the Continent, in enormous quantities.
The reason for this, at least since the war, is the hopeless lack of containers. It is impossible—I know this myself as a grower on a moderate scale—to get containers such as are necessary to send our vegetables any distance away from home, and although I realise that I am speaking to wholly English benches opposite, I hope that they will realise that the development of the horticultural trade in Scotland is a great opportunity to put into practice what the Government say they are out to do—to help Scottish industry generally.
From the health point of view it is most essential that this trade should be developed. The simple fact at present is that we cannot get any kind of containers for sending our fruit, vegetables

or flowers about the country. I hope that when the hon. Lady replies, she will tell us that she is going to see her right hon. and charming Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and tell him that she is ready to help in every possible way this trade, not only in England but in Scotland.

1.12 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Baker White) on raising this question, which gives me an opportunity of explaining to the House some of the difficulties which are confronting us today, when we know that the growers are anticipating very large crops and are faced with this problem of providing containers. Some of the hon. Members who have spoken, and who are obviously authorities on the subject, might perhaps have been a little more generous in their recognition that we have in the past tried to do everything in our power to provide them with these containers, and I am right, I think, in saying that the hon. Gentlemen opposite could not tell me of any case where we have refused to supply containers. We have, I think, at least on every occasion as far as I am aware when application has been made to us, tried to supply the quantity asked for, because we recognise that we are dealing with a highly perishable commodity and it is in the interests of the people of the country that containers should be supplied.
I can assure the House that the shortage of containers cannot be attributed to any shortcomings in the Ministry of Food. It is a fact that there are shortages of raw materials and we have tried in every way possible to distribute the available supplies as equitably as we can. As hon. Gentlemen know, we release timber to the growers and to the wholesalers, and we leave it to them to make their own arrangements for containers.
The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) looks to the time when containers will be non-returnable. During the war it was important that we should make certain regulations regarding the standardisation of containers and we did lay down certain specifications to which the manufacturers had to comply. At that time we made containers returnable and we also did insist upon a very large deposit for con-


tainers. We only did this because the shortage of raw materials was so great that we were forced to do it.
The hon. Member has mentioned different kinds of woods. Well, I am fully aware that the growers and wholesalers like their containers to be made of soft woods. Owing to the shortage of soft woods, we have had to use hard woods recently, and although we are using hard woods we have had no serious complaints. It is surprising how few complaints we have had from growers and wholesalers. This year we are faced with a very heavy crop of apples and demands for bushel and half bushel boxes have increased considerably. Already in the present quarter, starting 1st July, timber for 1,043,786 bushel and half bushel boxes have been issued, which has made serious inroads on our quota of hard woods. This contrasts with the number of containers for which timber was issued in the third quarter—June to August—in the past: the average number in the last four years was 800,000.
I think hon. Members will agree that, although there is an apparent shortage, we have made a tremendous contribution to the needs of growers. Now I confess we are in a very difficult position, faced with a shortage of hard woods. We have already made application for 400,000 cu. ft That is another application to the Board of Trade and we are waiting now for them to consider whether we should have priority. Hard woods are in very short supply, and I am afraid I cannot promise the hon. Member who raised the subject that we can give him the kind of container he would like. It has been arranged that in order to make these bushel and half bushel boxes we shall use soft and hard woods. We are, going to make the containers 40 per cent. soft and 60 per cent. hard wood. I take this opportunity of appealing to all growers and wholesalers to make 100 per cent. returns of containers, if possible. I shall look into the point raised, but would like more evidence, as to whether they are being used for firewood. The hon. and gallant Member for Worthing said we must know about these things. I want to emphasise again, as I have done before, that rumours and hearsay are not enough. We must have specific evidence and then we can take action.
The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned chip baskets. The manufacture of

chip baskets is confined to a few firms only and they distribute them to the trade. The only container which is not in short supply is brussel sprouts nets. We have been able to supply a considerable quantity of those. With regard to the supply of cardboard, we have enough to make 7½ million 12-lb. tomato boxes a year. A small amount is used for packing soft fruit. Seventy-five per cent. of the cardboard is allocated to manufacturers who, in their turn, allocate it to their customers who have certain prewar usages. The other 25 per cent. is allocated to tomato growers in order to provide for any bumper crop which might occur, and I think that is fair.
All these containers are returnable, and I cannot promise the hon. Member who raised this subject when we can announce to the trade that they can keep their containers. In fact, I am afraid, I must strike a pessimistic note tonight. Until we have a more abundant supply of raw materials we cannot offer more containers to the growers and wholesalers. As far as I am aware I do not know of any case where we have had to refuse a grower. Some owners certainly ask us for a number of containers which seems to us excessive, but we do our best to supply a percentage of every demand. I want to assure hon. Members opposite that though supplies are limited, we are doing everything possible to satisfy the trade.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: What proportion of these materials, for instance cardboard, is sent to Scotland, or is it all kept in England?

Dr. Summerskill: Oh, no, it is sent to Scotland as well.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: We get a very limited amount.

Mr. Baldwin: I suggest that one source of raw material available for cardboard boxes is the collection of waste paper. A great effort was made in this connection during the war, but I am afraid it is lacking at present. There is no system of waste paper collection at present operating generally throughout the country.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-two minutes past One o'Clock.